Genetic load and no, you’re not entitled to breed.

The low IQ Americans: MUH ANCESTORS
-died. Mostly died. STFU with the snowflaking outrage.

Maths below.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297657116_Mutation_and_Human_Exceptionalism_Our_Future_Genetic_Load

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species.

What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.

Actually, it’s anti-selection aka dysgenics. There is always a pressure in some direction, read Darwin?

You can’t have dystopia without dysgenics. That’s all a dystopia is.

The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition,

Non-uniform.

By race and subrace.

potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies,

Which metrics?

Technically you only need one truly fuck-up generation (say Boomers) to install those social policies up to 3 (living memory). This is without external group effects i.e. invasion on a genetic level, rape. So it isn’t fair to say immigration caused this, it compounds it severely. The Boomers and their outsized ingroup-gene infanticide will go down in history as mass murderers, if there’s anyone left.

and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.

Medicine isn’t magic. It cannot do that. We already cannot afford the current population with the present and dwindling useful tax base, let alone Japan levels of old coots living to infinity and China levels of population size.

You can’t fuck your way out of this, r-types. You can’t immigrate it either, those new entries have a lower IQ, higher overall group fertility and represent a smaller usable tax base. Debt doesn’t exist to cover this medical cost, even digital money typing. You can’t even type your way out of it. Hyperinflation would occur first, long before actually. Try running the numbers, see if you’re as smart as me. The cost of quality food is the anchor point. Of all living expenses, that one actually keeps you alive?

Don’t become a doctor, kids. Medicine bubble, heard it here first.

Hell, NHS GPs are already quitting now. Retention will only get worse. The ones who stay have lower IQ and can’t find gainful employment anywhere else. This is how socialism degrades infrastructure, the first generation the NHS seemed fine but the second, it attracted parasites to become GPs for the money and by the third, the original talented ones (by private sector standards) had retired and died, leaving training downhill from there.

Other people have explained that before. That one isn’t me.

Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.

Measurement? We’re lower IQ than ingroup Victorian ancestors by reaction time.

No action?

No correction?

No control?

No standards?

No relevant barriers to entry? Say, for breeding? At least on state funding?

Shows what they think of the producers, dunnit?

Leave the leech alone! The parasites are fine!

Yeah wait a few generations, maybe a century and hope the metrics are correctly chosen to matter!

Long after the researchers are dead so you can’t kill them for being wrong.

This is Idiocracy, even academia is full of nitwits.

We used to have a breeding license, it’s called a marriage certificate.

Below a certain IQ, you can’t actually consent to get married or breed. Maybe study that first?

No, that would be both logical and responsible.

See, I don’t just sit here bitching. I have solutions but nobody listens.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291734415_Mean_household_size_in_mid-Tudor_Englandclackclose_hundred_Norfolk

cites
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313794802_Mutation_Accumulation_Theory

nb Historians and real scientists say European, liars typically say Caucasian.

For example, among European populations in the year 1600 AD the average individual had around a 25-40 % chance of dying in infancy, a 50 % chance of dying during childhood (Volk and Atkinson 2008), and only around a 40 % chance of fully participating in reproduction (Rühli and Henneberg 2013). The average family size was close to five in 1600s England (Arkell & Whiteman, 1998) -given the high rates of pre- term, infant, and child mortality, the numbers ever conceived would likely have been considerably higher. These historical Western infant and child mortality statistics are similar to those observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations (Volk and Atkinson 2008)

I’ll list the maths since there’s always that one idiot who “disagrees”.

Of those born, low ball:

100 – 25% = 75
75 – 50% = 37.5
37.5 – 40% = 15
15 of 100 births eventually reproduced, at best.

Your ancestors in 1600 weren’t entitled to breed either. STFU, stupid sections of America.
Natural selection is important.

RITES OF PASSAGE. TOUGH ONES.

Assuming you aren’t tradlarping?

Bear in mind, that wasn’t sex-specific and those estimates are the population i.e. they have to breed with one another.*

Less conservative estimate:

100 – 40% = 60
60 – 50% = 30
30 – 40% = 12
12 of 100 births eventually reproduced, by academic estimate. The more realistic one.

Again, stop being so entitled. Considering the odds, five kids average is actually pretty low.
The entitled brats, appealing to a tradition that’s totally ignorant and imaginary, are the spiteful mutants. In any other time period, you’d probably be dead by now. Male infant mortality is higher than female overall for humans, which hasn’t been factored in. 

And WWs 1 and 2 culled the bravest genes of that millennia selection by machine gun and sniper.

At least the bankers made mo- wait, they’ve already “run out” of fake money. Less than a century later.

What was it all for?

so

7.5%

or 7.5/100 births eventually reproduced as a couple TOPS

down to, more reasonably

6% of MEN* (or women, maybe**) compared to the grandfather’s generation.

[Father 50% reproduction as male, Grandfather 100% comparison, since all grandfathers would have bred logically.]

or 6/100 births from the total population, coupled.

Assuming 50/50 male/female birth split and flat survival, which doesn’t exist.**

Since breeding requires TWO people, America.

3 generations tops, with a 6% male survival in 1600 Europe.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

6% by sex.

This doesn’t further subdivide by health, wealth, religion or attractiveness.

If one surviving guy in that 100 births total was infertile or refused marriage, you can kinda see why it was a big deal.

This is why inheritance was always conditional on religion, approved choice of spouse and vitally, children.

If the Boomers wanna do some good, write into your will your kids get nothing unless actively Christian, married, with at least one child with a spouse you approve of. They won’t do it. They’ll complain about no grandkids though. That never gets old.

Superstitious minds

Mini post. Kinda. Why is Benedict Cumberbatch so ugly?

No really. If we’re doing red pill observations, humour me.


I mentioned before about old world superstitions forgotten in recent years.
As recently as my parent’s generation, they considered ugly children the product of sin, that God was punishing their parents for their sin. You can still find this info around if you look but they rarely dive into it.

You could say it’s about STDs but back then people rarely travelled and slept around enough to frequently catch them. The modern microbiome of the slut is more taxed. So what?

Back to the school mocking. If a child had always married parents but became ugly in the teens, questions would be asked openly and they would get teased about whether one or both parents had ever cheated. This is where we get the term bastard. It isn’t actually about bastards, it’s about ugliness. The ugliness of parental deceit.

You can pretty much tell when there’s a birth defect in a baby, the eyes look dull if it’s mental. It’s a known indicator of fatal defects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957214001703

2015 Birth Defects in the Newborn Population: Race and Ethnicity

Overall birth defect prevalence was 29.2 per 1000 in a cohort of 1,048,252 live births, of which 51% were Caucasians.

Full white or mongrelised? Let’s assume pureblood despite America (mixed white, mostly). American whites are on average less attractive as white blended than single nation counterparts, even living in America. Models tend to come from homogeneous national areas, (i.e. subrace) a finding that is known to apply to white settlers in Brazil to this day, they send scouts. Specifically.

https://www.thecut.com/2010/06/model_scouts_find_more_than_ha.html

Compared with Caucasians, the risk of overall birth defects was lower in African–Americans (relative risk = 0.9, confidence interval 0.8–0.9) and Hispanics (relative risk = 0.9, confidence interval 0.8–0.9).

Failure to consider abortions for “no” reason or gender as defective. Selection bias. A lot of those already had abortions because they’re high abortion groups!

The risk of overall birth defects was similar in Caucasians and Asians. Relative to the Caucasians, African–Americans had a lower risk of cardiac, genitourinary, and craniofacial malformations but a higher risk of musculoskeletal malformations. Hispanics had a lower risk of genitourinary and gastrointestinal malformation. Asians had a higher risk of craniofacial and musculoskeletal malformations.

Didn’t control for proportion in the population, then non-whites are way ahead.

Craniofacial = ugly. 

Musculoskeletal = ugly. Well, dumpy.

Unless you’re going to argue a big is beautiful for literal birth defects?

And “similar” isn’t same. It isn’t statistical. This is like IVF success studies again (see below).

Why did some old world men witness the birth? All babies look like those reddish potatoes, it can’t be a resemblance. You can tell a resemblance to one parent over another by middle childhood to puberty.
We’re told that it’s about adultery and it might be true if you suspect a man with certain features e.g. skin colour, an extra finger.

Yet, what can you tell at birth? Ugliness.
Whether or not the man in question remembers that reason.

Cinderella effect also applies to genetic but ugly kids (lookism, it’s aka). The parents reject them, even if one genetically caused their fug.

Take Cumberbatch, product of a union involving adultery.
Fugly. Nice voice, but his father is the looker. Mother is a looker too. The issue cannot be genetic.

Some superstitions have a basis in fact.

Why did old ladies peer into a pram to judge the ugliness of the babe?

To see if you’re a SINNER!

[inc Thou shalt not adulterate]

Picking on an ugly white guy wouldn’t be totally kosher. I have other evidence.

We’re looking for spiteful mutants.

Now the post gets huge.

To more data, ever more data, smother the liars in data:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/informationregardingmixedraceparentage

“Please may I request the following information, records and documentation under the Freedom of Information Act:

Information in regard to people of mixed race parentage- often called ‘white and black Caribbean’, ‘white and black African’, ‘white and Asian’, ‘other mixed’- being at increased risk of being born with a birth defect, stillborn, or of suffering from fertility problems in their adult lives, which is related to their mixed race parentage

Information regarding NHS policy and practice on the advising of interracial couples, who are prospective parents, about the increased risk of their child being born with a birth defect, stillborn, or infertile in adult life, which would be connected to their, the child’s, mixed race parentage

Please may I also request statistical information and records which display the following:

The percentage of overall cases of babies born with a birth defect, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall cases of babies still born, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall cases of infertility, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall births, which is attributable to each ethnic group”

Reply:

“In Tables 8 and 10, mixed race is included in a single category of Mixed, Chinese and any other ethnic group. This is because the numbers in these groups are sufficiently low to risk being disclosive, and follows agreed statistical guidelines.
a) being born with a birth defect – this information is shown in Table 10.
b) being still born – this information is not published. However, you could request a special extract (further details of how to do this are explained below).
c) we do not hold any information on infertility, and are therefore not able to answer your question about adults suffering from fertility problems, connected to their mixed race parentage.”

Do not hold information my lily-white arse.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/infertility-ivf-nhs-race-lgbt-asian-black-women-a9216921.html

Table link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/gestationspecificinfantmortality/2014-10-15

“Page does not exist”.

It’s this paper.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/pregnancyandethnicfactorsinfluencingbirthsandinfantmortality/2014-10-15

“Some research suggests that Black and Asian women have shorter gestation than White European women, and that this may be due to earlier fetal maturation (Patel et al., 2004). The discrepancies in gestation by ethnicity may also be explained by socio-economic, behavioural and physiological differences among the different ethnic groups (Gray et al., 2009).”

In an ONS report. They know.

“Table 10 (184.5 Kb Excel sheet) shows that for four of the five combined ethnic groups analysed, the most common cause of infant death was immaturity related conditions

(Black, 54%;

Mixed, Chinese and any other group, 44%;

White, 43%;

For a majority, that’s incredibly low.

and those where ethnicity was

not stated, 49%).

For the Asian group, the most common cause was congenital anomalies (41%). A higher incidence of congenital anomalies in Asian populations is well-documented (Gray et al. 2009).”

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/child-health/gestation-specific-infant-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2012/rft-table-1.xls

Low birthweight and prematurity are both measures of fetal development. Another measure is the baby’s size in relation to its gestational age. Babies whose birthweight lies below the tenth percentile for their gestational age are known as ‘small for gestational age’ (SGA).

Not all babies who are SGA have a pathological growth restriction; they may just be constitutionally small.

read: racially

This may explain why babies of Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani origin are more likely to be SGA than White British babies.”

Smaller brains too. Inbreeding depression but also group average by nation. Look at national IQ.

https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
Bangladesh 82
Over one whole standard deviation below. According to the likes of Peterson, useless to a Western economy. The average Bangladeshi.
India 82
Recall regression to the mean. Also, friendliness correlates more to low IQ. Do not be fooled.
Pakistan 84
Thailand 91
Philippines 86
Nigeria 84
Jamaica 71, where we’re picking up new NHS nurses.

Enjoy that decline.

Tables 8 and 10 mentioned in FOI request not listed, have to know it’s there.
Under Downloadable Tables:

“Table 8: Live births, neonatal and infant mortality by ethnic group and gestational age at birth, 2012 birth cohort, England and Wales

Table 10: Infant mortality by ONS cause groups and broad ethnic group, 2012 birth cohort, England and Wales”

For future reference, write your FOI requests as “concern for services provided to BAME women” and “progressive need for up-to-date medical guidance for mixed race couples and the biracial in family planning”.

You have to download the excel, click to tables 8 and 10, then read the footnote of superscript 1 to know to scroll right.

Table 8: All others^1
7.1% under 37wks
9.2% SGA

Black SGA: 9.2 and 12.3%.
Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani only SGA: 17%, 16.3%, 14.2%.
White SGA: 7.2%, 6.2%.
Unknown 8.2%.
ALL SGA average: 8.2%.

Something’s off.

Pre-term neonatal deaths
Total: 869
B,I,P: 9, 30, 47
Black: 39, 13
White: 549, 63
Unknown, not stated: 32
All others^1: 87
For such a vanishingly small percentage of the population, how is it 87?
10% of pre-term deaths were “1 Chinese, Other Asian, Other black, Other and all Mixed groups.”

Do you see what I see?

For non-statistically minded people:

Infant death, pre-term
Total: 1232
B 21
I 41
P 66
Black African: 62
Black Caribbean: 20
W native 750
W other 86
Not stated 48
All others^1: 138

See it yet? If you controlled for population ratio, it’d be more dramatic by far.

This is why they hide it and I have to make my own charts.

Term infant deaths
Total: 895
All others^1: 102.
That’s 11.4% from a tiny group of mixed.

Table 10 screen-capped, do your own charts.

Related studies, I do have a point about measurement error.

https://iussp2009.princeton.edu/papers/93139
2009 Fertility by ethnic and religious groups in the UK, trends in a multi-cultural context

Asian tsunami in USA too
https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281416/birth-rate-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

From one of the links, can’t find which. Calm down. Either they’re abstaining from having kids once here, infertile, the neonate dies or it’s retarded. Being here is actually a curse since they’re held to the standards and economy of a higher IQ nation. They’re voter birds here for a season or tax chattel and they’ll leave when it’s convenient to.

Ethnicity and IVF

“How a patient’s ethnic background affects her chance of pregnancy, especially with IVF, is a fascinating yet poorly studied area of research. According to a 1995 national survey of family growth, non-Caucasian married women were more likely to experience infertility than Caucasian married women, yet these same non-Caucasian women were less likely to receive any type of infertility treatment—especially treatment with assisted reproductive technologies.

There is very little data in the literature examining ethnicity and its affect upon pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Ethnic minorities compose a small percentage of patients in the nation’s IVF programs, making it relatively difficult to examine how they respond to various infertility treatments. In the few studies that have examined the affect of ethnicity on IVF pregnancy rates, differing outcomes have been found.

There have been only a few studies specifically comparing IVF success rates between African Americans and Caucasians. The results of two of these studies contradict each other, with one showing that African Americans had decreased pregnancy rates with IVF as compared to Caucasians, and the other finding no difference in pregnancy outcomes with IVF between these two ethnic groups.

Likewise, there are only a few studies directly comparing IVF pregnancy outcomes between Indians and Caucasians. One shows a trend towards decreased pregnancy rates in Indian women and finds that Indian women were significantly more likely to have their cycle cancelled as compared to Caucasian women. In comparison, another study found no significant difference in IVF pregnancy rates between Indians and Caucasians. A more recent study has shown that Asian ethnicity was an independent predictor of poor outcome with IVF. There have been no studies examining IVF pregnancy outcomes in Hispanics in comparison to any other ethnic groups.

We’ll see why.

When I was in training, I published the first study comparing IVF outcomes among multiple ethnic groups. It was a retrospective study utilizing a data set that was the result of the collaboration between three IVF centers in the Boston area: Boston IVF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital IVF Center, and Reproductive Science Center.
We retrospectively reviewed the cycles of 1,135 women undergoing IVF between 1994 and 1998. Only the first IVF cycle for each couple was reviewed. Ethnicity was self-reported. Women who categorized themselves as having a mixed ethnic background were excluded.

Seriously. Measurement bias much?

….In order to better understand how ethnicity affects IVF outcome, it will be necessary to study a larger number of minority patients. In these studies, it is important that all ethnicities be included. If racial differences do exist, IVF treatment protocols could be adjusted to improve the success rates for patients of all ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, further exploration in this area is necessary and very important.”

We did that.

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/bjog-release/

“After adjusting for certain factors including the age of the patient at time of treatment, cause of female or male infertility, and type of treatment (ICSI vs IVF), the study found that White Irish, South Asian Indian, South Asian Bangladeshi, South Asian Pakistani, Black African, and Other Asian women had a significantly lower odds of a live birth than White British women. For example, the live birth rate for White British women was 26.4% compared to 17.2% for White Irish women and 17.4% for Black African women.

The study also found that some groups of women including South Asian Bangladeshi, Black African, Middle Eastern, have a significantly lower number of eggs collected than White British women.

Moreover, South Asian Indian, South Asian Bangladeshi, South Asian Pakistani, Black British, Black African, Black Caribbean and Middle Eastern women were at a higher risk of not reaching the embryo transfer stage.

The paper explores the possible reasons behind the variation and states that while genetic background could be a potential determinant of egg and sperm quality, variation in environmental exposures relating to lifestyle, dietary factors, socio-economic and cultural factors could be influencing egg and sperm quality, accessibility of fertility treatment and behaviour towards seeking medical care and consequently reproductive outcomes.

No, they were living in the same place. Muh Magic Dirt.

Genetics is the ONLY difference now.

You have NOTHING.

DNA causes germline DNA, really? Maybe?

Furthermore, the increased prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in South Asian women may have an impact on egg quality and lower implantation rates.

Shit tier WHR tipped us off on that one, see end.

Dr Kanna Jayaprakasan, Consultant subspecialist in Reproductive Medicine, Derby Fertility Unit, Royal Derby Hospital; Honorary Associate Professor in Gynaecology, University of Nottingham and senior author of the paper, said:

“The data suggests that ethnicity is a major independent factor determining the chances of IVF or ICSI treatment success.

“While the reason for this association is difficult to explain, the potential factors could be the observed differences in cause of infertility, ovarian response, fertilisation rates and implantation rates, which are all independent predictors of IVF success.

“The main strengths of the study are the use of the UK HFEA national database which includes a large number of women treated in all UK units. However, the numbers in some of the sub-ethnic minorities, such as Bangladeshi women, were low in the study.”

Professor Adam Balen, spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Chair of the British Fertility Society (BFS) said:

“Infertility affects 10-15% of the population and more people are seeking fertility treatment.

“This interesting study looking at maternal ethnicity provides useful data based on a large number of women undergoing fertility treatment. The reasons behind the variation need to be looked at in more detail but in the future could potentially help improve success rates amongst all groups of women.”

Nope!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1472648315002564

“Black and South Asian women were found to have lower live birth rates compared with White women”
“Black and South Asian women seem to have the poorest outcome, which is not explained by the commonly known confounders. Future research needs to investigate the possible explanations for this difference and improve IVF outcome for all women.”

Almost like Anglo women evolved to breed in the Anglo climate?

The Ice Age killed the boyish ones.

MORE:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636517/

“Variation in risk factors and outcomes was found in infants of White mothers by paternal race/ethnicity.”

I wonder which way.
Inbreeding or outbreeding depression?

Guess.

“Status exchange hypothesizes that in a marriage market framework, minority men marry less-desired White women (e.g., of lower education) in exchange for higher social status. The second hypothesis, in-group preference, simply suggests that people prefer members from their own group, and thus, intermarriage is the less desirable scenario.”

Dudebros like “where’s da studies?”

I’m like “Have you even looked?”

“Together they found that mixed-race couples differed significantly with respect to their sociodemographic characteristics from the endogamous couples. After control for those variables, biracial infants were found to have worse birth outcomes than infants with 2 White parents but better than infants with 2 Black parents.6,8–12 (Henceforth, infant’s race/ethnicity will be referred to by the notation “maternal race/ethnicity–paternal race/ethnicity” [e.g., White–Black].)”

DING DING DING DING DING

TIL Wombs iz white supremacist.

“Consistent with Table 1, infants in the White–unreported group had the worst birth outcomes in each category.”

Trans. mixed. Likely Asian since S. America and Black are already covered.

Learn to read, weebs.

“In general, I found substantial variation in birth outcomes within the group of infants with White mothers and fathers of different racial/ethnic groups. This is interesting because it shows that the common practice of using maternal race/ethnicity to refer to the infant’s race/ethnicity, regardless of father’s race/ethnicity, can be problematic.

aka nice way of calling out deception

For example, it is not uncommon for a study to refer to infants of White mothers as “White infants,” even though “White infants” may imply that the fathers are White. In this study, I demonstrated that infants of a White mother and a White father, the real “White infants,” have the better birth outcomes than do those infants of a White mother and a non-White father. Therefore, the practice of using “White mother” to refer to White infants will yield lower estimation of the birth outcomes because there are infants of non-White fathers in the sample.”

They know. It’s a cover-up.

Category errors galore.

“The infants in the White–White group had the most-advantaged birth outcomes, followed by infants in the 3 Hispanic-father groups. Infants in the White–Black group had the second-most-disadvantaged birth outcomes; the differences in birth outcomes between White–Black and White–White infants were statistically significant: White–White infants had a 2% (70 g) higher average birthweight, 26% lower LBW rate (4.64% vs 6.26%), and 39% lower infant mortality rate (0.43% vs 0.71%) than did White–Black infants. Infants in the White–unknown group had the most-disadvantaged outcomes in each category. These heterogeneities within White mothers show that the common practice of using maternal race/ethnicity to refer to the race/ethnicity of the infant is problematic: White–White infants had the best birth outcomes among the groups studied, so any other paternal race/ethnicity pulls down the averages for all White mothers. That is, the birth outcomes of White–White infants are actually underestimated by researchers who use mothers’ race/ethnicity to refer to infants’ race/ethnicity, and thus, the racial/ethnic disparities between White and any other race/ethnicity may be underestimated accordingly as well.”

Relevant!

“…Clearly, the unreported father is a proxy for more-noteworthy factors, because if unreported fathers were merely missing from certificates, their infants’ outcomes should not be so much worse.”

What DO these studies have in common? [Asians]

Could also be child of rape as a confound.

You’ll see.

2012 Biracial couples and adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776059

“Biracial status of parents was associated with higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes than both White parents but lower than both Black parents, with maternal race having a greater influence than paternal race on pregnancy outcomes.”

Evolution is racist or instincts evolved for reasons? Pick ONE.

Your Third World surrogate plan may need retouching.

If it fails or dies or gets retarded, you still gotta pay up! What are the odds?

Why is it so hard to find studies about the most populous race on the planet?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238617

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564431
2018
What is associated with IQ and other development issues? Pre-term birth.

“Maternal age, education level, race and ethnicity, smoking during pregnancy, and parity were significant risk factors associated with PTB.”

It’s mentioned along with smoking.

“…The analysis of interactions between maternal characteristics and perinatal health behaviors showed that Asian women have the highest prevalence of PTB in the youngest age group (< 20 years; AOR, 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28-1.54).”

I want more studies about them. I’m not scared of reality.

That suggests a genetic predisposition to be present so young. I’d compare PTB to WHR, personally.

“Pacific Islander, American Indian, and African American women ≥40 years of age had a greater than two-fold increase in the prevalence of PTB compared with women in the 20-24 year age group.”

Their own women.

Pre-term study and IQ:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/136/3/415
“RESULTS: Across all assessments, VP/VLBW individuals had significantly lower IQ scores than term-born controls, even when individuals with severe cognitive impairment (n = 69) were excluded. IQ scores were found to be more stable over time for VP/VLBW than term-born individuals, yet differences in stability disappeared when individuals with cognitive impairment were excluded. Adult IQ could be predicted with fair certainty (r > 0.50) from age 20 months onward for the whole VP/VLBW sample (n = 260) and from 6 years onward for term-born individuals (n = 229).

CONCLUSIONS: VP/VLBW individuals more often suffer from cognitive problems across childhood into adulthood and these problems are relatively stable from early childhood onward. VP/VLBW children’s risk for cognitive problems can be reliably diagnosed at the age of 20 months. These findings provide strong support for the timing of cognitive follow-up at age 2 years to plan special support services for children with cognitive problems.”

So it doesn’t cause but it is associated. Humans evolved long gestation for the brain.

Clear defect evidence in the genes- study it!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29903290

But surely, you say, genetic issues would be also hormonal (hormones regulate genes as well) and apply to men?
Well…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31348744
Yes. Yes it would.

“A total of 9079 patients were reviewed, of which 3956 patients had complete data. Of these, 839 (21.2%) were azoospermic. After adjusting for age, African-Canadians (odds ratio [OR] 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.25) and Asians (1.34; 95% CI 1.11-1.62) were more likely to be azoospermic compared to Caucasians.”

Some of us form opinions AFTER reading.
White men are literally more fertile and most fertile with white women.

“Similarly, African Canadians (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.33-2.29) were more likely to be oligospermic and Asians (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.97) less likely to be oligospermic. Low volume was found in African-Canadian (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.05-1.91), Asians (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and Indo-Canadians (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.01-2.13). Furthermore, Asians (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93) and Hispanics (OR 0.58; 95% CI 034-0.99) were less likely to have asthenospermia. Asians (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.94) and Indo-Canadians (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.99) were less likely to have teratozospermia. No differences were seen for vitality. No differences were seen for FSH levels, however, Asians (p<0.01) and Indo-Canadians (p<0.01) were more likely to have lower testosterone.”

It’s always the damn Asians.
Magic Dirt won’t fix your shitty sperm.

Maybe if we spend more on the NHS! The evolution fairy may visit!

The lower sexual dimorphism of Asians makes them functionally partially infertile. This is why they marry so young (it isn’t traditionalism) and despite this, have a low birth count per person, and are the most populous race on Earth. They’re actually the most r-selected, Mother Nature holds them back from fertilization with mutations. Along with r-selection, more total fertility issues in the male/offspring (azoospermia, infant death), lower volume AND lower testosterone, it all fits!

Is that my fault? No. Stop blaming me for reading. I’m not, in fact, God.

Hey, we have our own group with shitty sperm. Theirs is just bigger and more characteristic of the whole.

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962784

“AR-CAG repeat length was longer in infertile men in Asian, Caucasian, and mixed races (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.43, P <0.01; SMD = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.25, P <0.05; SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.15-0.63, P <0.01).

Notice p-value difference is so loose for white it doesn’t meet the medical standard? 0.05 is too high. Absurdly.

The overall study shows that increased AR-CAG repeat length was associated with male infertility. The subgroup study on races shows that increased AR-CAG repeat length was associated with male infertility in Asian, Caucasian, and mixed races. Increased AR-CAG repeat length was also associated with azoospermia. This meta-analysis supports that increased androgen receptor CAG length is capable of causing male infertility susceptibility.”

In the interest of intellectual honesty.

WHR

We literally have the studies. e.g. It’s metabolic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306982/

“Sixty-four PCOS patients and 40 women served as the control group were studied. The two groups were subdivided according to the body mass index (BMI) into two obese and non-obese groups. Waist:hip ratio (WHR), plasma epinephrine level was estimated, sympathetic skin response (SSR); postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, heart rate variability (HRV), and valsalva ratio were measured in both groups.”
“Compared to the control group, obese PCOS patients demonstrated higher BMI and WHR, reduced palmar SSR latency and higher amplitude, altered HRV, higher plasma epinephrine level, and rapid pulse rate. Moreover, non-obese patients show reduced palmar SSR latency and higher amplitude, higher plasma epinephrine level, and higher pulse rate. BMI and WHR of the patients were positively correlated with plasma epinephrine level; while the HRV was negatively correlated WHR.”
“The BMI and WHR were significantly higher in the PCOS patients compared to the control group 36.63±4.23 kg/m2 vs. 34.14±3.39 kg/m2 (p=0.041) and 0.88±0.05 compared to 0.79±0.11 (p=0.001), respectively.”

“We demonstrated high plasma epinephrine level during lying and standing positions in PCOS patients. This could be of obesogenic origin as we noticed a positive correlation between plasma epinephrine level and both of BMI and WHR. PCOS patients of this study exhibited central abdominal obesity and the mechanisms by which central obesity drive an increase in sympathetic activity are not entirely clear. Yet, the fat cells have increased sensitivity to lipolytic agents and/or the factors inducing fat mobilization are turned on (16). This was further supported that adipocytes isolated from the visceral fat depot of women with PCOS had increased catecholamine-stimulated lipolysis (17).”

Nice boy hips. Don’t try for kids. (Goes for all races, Spartans forced girls to be lightly athletic to be ready for childbirth as a woman, that broadens hips beyond racial average).
And when the NHS totally fails, picture the fatal correction to reality when these women expect childbirth interventions. No waist? No taste.

Old expression.

It’s genetic. They’re gonna get fat – or the kids will. We’ve all seen them. I’m just saying, the signs were there. Choosing a woman with a shit tier WHR is like electing for a manlet over the average height. It could rarely work out for health, but rarely. Don’t get angry at me.

https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/4755-4761-Metabolic-parameters-in-PCOS-and-abdominal-obesity.pdf

“RESULTS: Women with WHR ≥0.8 had higher concentration of glucose and insulin (both fasting and after 120 min of oral administration of 75 g glucose), as well as HOMA-IR value, than women with WHR value < 0.8. Also, abdominal obesity disorders hormonal parameters. Higher free androgen index and lower concentration of sex hormone binding globulin and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate were found in female with WHR ≥ 0.8.

There’ll still be guys like “WHR doesn’t matter, medically”.

Muh dudebros going, “at least they’re skinny”. But they’re not?

“Women with WHR ≥0.8 had… abdominal obesity disorders hormonal parameters.”

They’re literally not. Chemically. You can biopsy the tissue and test it.

the fat cells have increased sensitivity to lipolytic agents and/or the factors inducing fat mobilization are turned on”

My feels have zero to do with that, dude. It’s genes?

NOBODY is jealous. You keep your secret fatty.

I implore you to marry the future whale and learn the hard way. They’re a puffer-fish.

Whatever their race. But the shorter they are, the worse it is. Short women should have an even SMALLER waist, since it’s skeletal. My own is far smaller than most Asians, for instance, despite being taller than most of them as white. If you want to piss them off, say (honestly) that men like small waists. Just generally. Gets them every time, although most people wouldn’t say they had a large one (not really looking and they don’t dress for it). They know they’re broad and they hate women who dress to show any different, including lucky exceptions in their own race, since it’s a countersignal. Namely: I can afford to have a smaller midsection, less running and foraging is required.

[If I want to dress to piss off a group of women, bodycon but for the waist only. It’s subtle and you’d imagine as a man they would neither notice nor care. Great way to tell a woman’s natural WHR – do they like bodycon? It needn’t be tight on T&A, actually that’s better, it’s actually about waist fit. Pill women also get larger round the middle, any weight gain is there and ruins WHR so it’s visual slut shaming too. Love it.]

Follicular stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, androstenedione, and 17-beta-estradiol, were on similar level in both groups. Elevation in triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein levels, as well as decrease in high density lipoprotein level in serum of women with WHR value ≥0.8, were found when compared to women with WHR < 0.8. A statistically significant correlation was found between WHR value and glucose, insulin, sex hormone binding globulin, free androgen index and lipid profile parameters.”

Hips don’t lie because biochemistry.

“CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal obesity causes additional disorders in metabolic and hormonal parameters in PCOS women, which confirmed changes in analyzed parameters between PCOS women with WHR < 0.8 and WHR ≥ 0.8 and statistically significant correlations between WHR value and analyzed parameters.”

Vegans stupid while pregnant again

B12 deficiency causes pre-term birth (higher risk of disease, death) and lower birth weight (yeah, like smoking).

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/185/3/212/2918733

Really at this point it’s a controlled late abortion than a birth, isn’t it?

Globally, preterm birth and low birth weight (LBW) cause more than a third of the 2.9 million neonatal deaths each year, and prevention of these events is an important component of reducing the mortality rate among children younger than 5 years of age (1, 2). The causes of preterm birth, however, are complex, and few interventions have been successful in preventing it (3).

Really.

Eat some fucking cheese. So complex.

tfw Mother Nature hates you.

However, in a recent meta-analysis, Haider and Bhutta (10) concluded that multiple-micronutrient supplementation may reduce the risk of LBW and the number of stillbirths but not the risk of preterm birth or neonatal mortality. Thus, a more targeted micronutrient supplementation practice may be warranted.

Won’t work.

You can’t supplement stupidity.

If they’d rather the baby die than get over themselves, they don’t deserve kids.

I love the ineffectual response of “supplements won’t work, but our solution is more of them”.

Your intellectual betters, behold!

Importantly, B12 deficiency may be a proxy for inadequate nutritional status, and it is possible that some of our findings are related to nutritional status and not specifically to B12. A predominantly plant-based diet is low in B12 but also other nutrients, such as vitamin D and zinc, that to some degree may be associated with preterm birth (42–44). We did not have information on dietary intake or blood levels of these nutrients. Nutritional status could explain the present finding of an association between B12 and birth weight in low- and middle-income countries but not high-income countries. However, lower vitamin B12 levels were associated with higher risk of preterm birth irrespective of country income. It seems less likely that nutritional status can fully explain this finding.

Vegetarianism: the Third World baby death diet.

Indian women generally have lower dietary intakes of B12 because of their mainly vegetarian diet, making them susceptible to B12 deficiency (46). Additionally, Indian newborns are among the smallest in the world (45). Our findings suggest that pregnancies already at the greatest risk of resulting in small newborns were the ones that were most vulnerable to low levels of B12. The association between B12 and the risk of preterm birth was consistent across studies in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries, and generalization to countries not studied may be feasible.

Stop eating vegan junk food.

In line with our findings, maternal obesity has been associated with B12 deficiency in several populations (47, 48). It has been hypothesized that this association is due to altered fat distribution and metabolism in overweight women compared with normal-weight women (47). Maternal weight is positively correlated with newborn weight (49), and failure to adjust for maternal weight may underestimate a positive association between B12 and birth weight.

Clearly Mother Nature is fatphobic.

paper 43
Zinc supplementation for improving pregnancy and infant outcome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25927101
44
Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747784/
https://www.cochrane.org/CD008873/PREG_vitamin-d-supplementation-women-during-pregnancy

Put down the leafy greens.
“However, it appears that when vitamin D and calcium are combined, the risk of preterm birth is increased.”

Circumcision, risky behaviours studies

Almost 7000 words. That was more than I expected to type. Circumcision studies generally. A post for men.

https://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/1999/11010/Sexual_Behaviors_and_Other_HIV_Risk_Factors_in.12.aspx
“Circumcised men also reported a preference for nonwet sex. “

Men concerned about HPV-cancer link:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.24097

“In multivariable analyses, detection of any HPV infection was significantly associated with reported race of Asian/Pacific Islander…
NonOncogenic HPV infection was independently associated with lifetime number of sexual partners. Circumcision, assessed by clinical examination, was associated with reduced risk of HPV detection across all categories of HPV evaluated. HPV detection in men in the current study was strongly related to sexual behavior and circumcision status. Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low‐cost method to reduce HPV infection.”

Really?

Hey, just in case you get a broken leg, get them amputated!

Significantly higher risk of HPV detection was associated with increasing numbers of lifetime female sexual partners (OR 6.96–9.01 for nononcogenic, any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting ≥50 partners compared to 1 partner), number of female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.31–3.43 for nononcogenic, any HPV, oncogenic HPV infections among men reporting 3–30 partners compared to no female partners), number of new female partners in the past 3 months (OR 2.64–2.85 for nononcogenic, oncogenic and any HPV type among men with ≥3 new female partners compared to no new partner), and anal sex with either a male or female (OR 1.40–1.45 for any HPV, and oncogenic HPV infections).”

Good luck trying to find studies brave enough to look at anal sex frequency alone!
They wouldn’t DARE.

What do they care if men get cancer, right?
Penile cancer is on the rise but do anal and never use a condom because a TV told you to!

Slut shaming also applies to men. Manwhores are disease-ridden.

“For example, the odds ratios for any HPV increased with increasing number of lifetime sexual partners peaking at an odds ratio of 6.65 among men who reported 20–49 partners.”

Er…. that’s well above average.

Here the lifetime partner rate is 4 and likely lower.

“However, the few published studies reporting HPV antibody status among men suggest that a smaller proportion of men than women are HPV antibody positive, despite a high HPV DNA prevalence among men.15″

Men are spreading it.

If I had to mock this, I’d get a tranny to dress up as Lady Gaga and sing “let’s have some fun this beat is sick, I wanna touch you with my cancer stick”… if only people had a sense of humour anymore.

“Don’t think too much, no condom bitch, ’cause porn is God and anal’s quick”

If I had to write the most unPC comedy show ever. No more jokes in this piece, it takes a serious turn.

Finally, Castellsague et al.8 demonstrated a profound and significant reduction in invasive cervical cancer risk among women whose male partners were circumcised.8″

So… what about male cancer risk? Shouldn’t you study that too?
And they wouldn’t spread HPV if they didn’t catch it being sluts.

Prevention > whatever this is.
They’re basically operating on baby boys, assuming they’ll be manwhores when they’re older.
No?

http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hs16015

” Policies and programmes should thus focus on the attitudes underlying sexual behaviour. “

Normally, studies of intact men are confounded by poverty and drinking.

And being promiscuous, obviously.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3700546/

HPV16, the most prevalent HPV type in this population (9.9%), also had the highest incidence (10.9/1000 person-months). A high incidence of HPV16 has been similarly reported in other studies among both men6, 7, 9, 14 and women.26 The high rate of acquisition of HPV16 has a clear implication for increasing cancer risk among men and their sexual partners, as HPV16 is the most common HPV type found in penile cancer among men;2 cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers among women;1, 27 and in anal and oropharyngeal cancers in both sexes.3, 4

Finally!

If you’re avoiding performing oral on a woman, what makes you think she doesn’t have it in her mouth too and second, you’d better not be doing anal in that case….

Penile HPV IRs in our study were higher in the glans specimen, including the inner foreskin, compared with the shaft (HR=2.1; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.4). Our results are in contrast to the findings of a US study of 240 men.7 In this highly circumcised US population, the cumulative probability of incident HPV infection did not differ by anatomical site (44.3% in glans vs 45.4% in shaft). Among uncircumcised men, there may be a larger disparity in HPV acquisition by penile site, potentially attributable to keratinisation of the glans epithelium and removal of the inner foreskin after circumcision.”

Circumcised men aren’t less likely to catch it.

They’ll catch it somewhere more fatal. Increasing the rate of penile cancer.

Because you literally cannot catch it in a foreskin you NO LONGER HAVE.

So it’s a trick of linguistics. There’s less disease – of the foreskin. That you lack.

https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper1652/SRBs%20and%20circumcision%20in%20Uganda_1652_fullpaper_PAA2016.pdf

“Conclusions
This study indicates higher prevalence of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised men in each
survey and a reduction in use of condoms with non-marital sexual partners among circumcised
men from 2004 to 2011, suggesting that promotion of male circumcision could result in risk
compensation.

Considering the high levels of sexual risk behaviours among men who are already
circumcised observed in this study, the Ministry of Health and partners need to continue
sensitising the sexually active population to use condoms even when a man is circumcised. These
messages should target both circumcised men and their sexual partners. Educating men
10 undergoing circumcision also needs to be strengthened to avoid sexual risk taking post
circumcision”

If they weren’t lied to, they wouldn’t want it.

https://www.malecircumcision.org/research/social-and-behavioural-research

“Data on changes in the sexual performance or sexual satisfaction of adolescents or men following circumcision are limited and conflicting.

Not really. Sunk cost fallacy is strong.

One study conducted among 138 Korean men an unknown time (possibly years) after circumcision found that 20 percent reported decreased sexual pleasure and 8 percent reported increased sexual pleasure following the procedure.3″

“Sixty-four percent of the circumcised men who were available for follow-up at 24 months reported greater penile sensitivity after circumcision, and 54 percent reported enhanced ease in reaching orgasm.6”

That is physically impossible, nerve endings are removed and existing ones covered with scar tissue.
Scar tissue is numb.

Phantom foreskin sensation?

3 – Kim DS, Pang MG. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2007;99(3):619-622.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

“Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.”

Men deserve to know this.
Sounds like surgical differences. Or maybe the men reporting more sensation had a thicker foreskin, limiting sensation?

“There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.”

Possibly? The surgery is intended to remove nerves and nerve endings. It REMOVES.

It’s literally taking away the thing that makes them a man, the crown of their manhood itself, the most important and sexually responsive organ to sexual pleasure.

http://www.thebodypro.com/content/art58409.html
https://www.poz.com/article/MSM-HIV-Circumcision-Study-Disregards-Roles-in-Anal-Sex-19575-6792
It is almost impossible to find them recording anal sex data, which harms men by omission.

http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Circumcision could be contributing to male fertility issues.

Laumann et al. [5] found that circumcised men had different sexual practices from genitally altered men. Circumcised men were more likely to masturbate, to engage in heterosexual anal and oral sex, and to engage in homosexual anal sex.

Why does the porn industry want all men circumcised, it’s a mystery.
Masturbation suggests dissatisfaction with normal, spousal sex, as do the others.

In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males [6].

Unusual longevity is not good, it’s a common sign of impotence, porn lies.
Difficulty finishing, medically.

Preputial secretions in mice and rats are a strong attractant for female mice and rats [7-11], and may provoke the onset of oestrus in mature females [12].”

I’m not kidding, impotence issues in performance, it’s tragic.

In addition, if humans do secrete pheromones, I’d expect to see that impact circumcised male fertility especially.

“The study results may reflect the tendency of people to choose the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. In a survey conducted on the Internet, circumcised men were significantly more likely to use additional artificial lubricants during sexual activity (odds ratio, OR = 5.64, 95% CI = 3.65 – 8.71) [16].”

That’s abnormal you shouldn’t need those, but without a foreskin there’s more friction, the prepuce evolved in men to reduce penile friction. Without the existence of lube, which might cause problems by ingredients, that suggests circumcised men would find it too painful to have sex at all. 

Great profit margins for the lube companies though.

The 12th century physician and rabbi Moses Maimonides advocated male circumcision for its ability to curb a man’s sexual appetite [17].

Yep, it’s a punishment.

Further, he implied that it could also affect a woman’s sexuality, indicating that once a woman had taken a lover who was not circumcised, it was very hard for her to give him up.

Data supports this, keep reading.
There is a HUGE improvement in sexual performance for intact men.
When you ask the people judging said performance.

The impact of male circumcision on the sexual pleasure experienced by both males and females is largely unstudied. While the brain is often cited as the primary ‘sexual’ organ, what impact does surgical alteration of the male genitalia have for both partners? Based on anecdotal reports, a survey was developed to determine the effect of male circumcision on a woman’s ability to achieve vaginal orgasm (both single and multiple), to maintain adequate vaginal secretions, to develop vaginal discomfort, to enjoy coitus and to develop an intimate relationship with her partner. This review presents the findings of a survey of women who have had sexual partners both with and without foreskins, and reports their experiences.”

“Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.”

So… the circumcised are bad in bed. No wonder American women don’t orgasm.

Objectively, the only way circumcised men can sexually perform is badly.
None of their behavioral pattern is pleasurable. None of it. Performance is judged by the recipient.

Again, everything porn tells you to do in bed is wrong.
It’s all the stuff that makes men bad in bed – that’s kinda why men enjoy viewing it, psychologically it’s telling them they’re normal by making bad performance in bed appear common and pay women to act aroused, contrary to honest data, like lonely women reading tons of romance novels and telling themselves “there’s nothing wrong with me”!

It’d be easy to test.

Do circumcised men enjoy watching intact men in porn? I’d bet not.
I’d bet they’d feel inferior. You think the industry doesn’t know that?

“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin [21]. Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”

Circumcision increases divorce risk.
Really.
The study mentioned is linked below, Hughes, but nobody followed up on it.

Too controversial, plus the timing of his death is ..interesting.

“During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to ‘really get into it’ and more likely to ‘want to get it over with’ (23.32, 11.24-48.39). On the other hand, with their unaltered partners, the reverse was true, they were less likely to ‘want to get it over with’ and considerably more likely to ‘really get into it.'”

“When the women were divided into those with more or fewer than 10 lifetime partners, those with >10 were more likely to have orgasms with their circumcised partners than those with fewer partners, but still less frequent orgasms than they had with their unaltered partners. Women who preferred a circumcised partner overall were more likely to have had <10 partners (3.52, 0.92-13.50).”

i.e. Don’t trust the sluts.

“The women who preferred circumcised partners (as elicited in one of three questions, n=20) were more likely to have had their first orgasm with a circumcised partner (8.38, 2.88-24.35) than those who preferred unaltered partners. Although these women preferred circumcised partners, they still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints (Sets 1 and 2, Table 3) during intercourse than their circumcised partners. In women who preferred circumcised men, there was no difference in their comparison of circumcised and unaltered men other than overall rating and a higher rate of premature ejaculation in their unaltered partners (4.63, 2.36-9.07)

That isn’t premature, that’s normal. The circumcised were demonstrating a sign of impotence.

These women had fewered unaltered partners (2.47 vs. 3.78, Z=-1.68, P=0.045), which suggests that their limited exposure to unaltered men may have been a consequence of ‘premature ejaculation’.

Note the quote marks, they’re actually the normal ones.

The inability to detect a difference in orgasm frequency, coital duration, coital complaints or satisfaction, and ‘yet to formulate a preference’, suggests that factors of conformity may be influential.

It’s… clear-cut.

“When women were grouped based on the preputial status of their most recent partner, women with unaltered partners had a higher rate of orgasms with them, at a mean (SEM) of 70 (31%)vs 56 (40%) (Z=2.28, P=0.01). They were more likely to rate circumcised partners lower (Z=-2.61, P0.0047) and unaltered partners higher (Z=2.83, P=0.002). When only women whose most recent partner was circumcised, the results were consistent with the results from the entire study population.”

Burn.

When women who preferred vaginal orgasm were compared with those preferring orally or manually induced orgasm, the former rated unaltered men higher (Z=2.12, P=0.016), had more positive post-coital feelings (Set 3; Z=2.68, P=0.003) with their unaltered partners, and rated these men higher overall (Z=2.12, P=0.016).”

It cannot be more obvious.

Biology lesson:

“When the penile shaft is withdrawn slightly from the vagina, the foreskin bunches up behind the corona in a manner that allows the tip of the foreskin which contains the highest density of fine-touch neuroreceptors in the penis [1] to contact the corona of the glans which has the highest concentration of fine-touch receptors on the glans [18]. This intense stimulation discourages the penile shaft from further withdrawal, explaining the short thrusting style that women noted in their unaltered partners.

The one they always preferred?

This juxtapostion of sensitive neuroreceptors is also seen in the clitoris and clitoral hood of the Rhesus monkey [19] and in the human clitoris [18].”

Men need to be told this nerve information in biology class.
Male is comparable to female circumcision. It causes blatant nerve damage.
It destroys the experience of sexual intensity and intimacy.

It removes neuroreceptors!

“Several respondents commented that the foreskin also makes a difference in foreplay and fellatio. Although this was not directly measured, some respondents commented that unaltered men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men [5] suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying [20].

I try to warn you.

Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus. While this study has some obvious methodological flaws, all the differences cannot be attributed to them. It is important that these findings be confirmed by a prospective study of a randomly selected population of women with experience with both types of men. It would be useful to examine the role of the foreskin in other sexual activities. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”

And male enjoyment too. I think they’d wanna know.

20 is Van Howe http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/letters.html#vanhowe

Of course adult feelings are not so easily dismissed. A preliminary survey of 75 men suggests that the more men know about the important functions of the prepuce, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied about being circumcised.3 Now that an increasing number of men are learning about the prepuce and expressing this dis-satisfaction, clinicians must acknowledge that is impossible to predict how a male infant will feel when he is older. A prudent course of action would be to allow men to make the decision about circumcision themselves when they reach adulthood.”

Men need informed consent, it’s THEIR penis.

More biology!

A hypothesis is needed to explain the findings of Laumann et al in the light of the known neurohistology. We suggest that a penis with foreskin and its full complement of neuroreceptors may make heterosexual coitus more satisfying, thereby making the man less likely to seek out alternate forms of stimulation. The only portion of the prepuce remaining in a man with surgically altered genitals is the remnant between the corona and the scar. While there are some fine-touch receptors in this tissue, the most sensitive portion of the prepuce at the tip is removed in even the most moderate circumcision.2 The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.

Explaining the risky sexual behaviors e.g. objecting to condom use. It doesn’t numb them, they’re already numb.

The only reason they want more oral, anal etc is to stimulate the remaining, tiny area of foreskin!

I wonder if the number of bisexual and gay men is lower in prevalence in intact men.

To date the effect of circumcision on sexual function has not been carefully studied. In rodent studies, removal of the prepuce resulted in marked changes in the mechanics of copulation,4 the hormonal response of the female partner, and aggressive behavior. In humans, behavioral alterations have been demonstrated in the pain response of circumcised infants.5 Unfortunately, studies of men circumcised as adults have had too few subjects or differences in sensation were not well documented. Testing penile vibratory thresholds has demonstrated that men experience increasing thresholds with age,

the penis does not age well

while those with premature ejaculation have low thresholds regardless of age.5 Application of this technique could be used to demonstrate if a sensation differences exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men.”

Other studies do now.

http://cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

“Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.”

Men deserve to know, informed consent.
This is based on a medically necessary population, not a NORMAL one – note.

Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.”

They note in bold: “There was no clear sample of normal, healthy, intact men for comparison. Even so, thirty-eight percent of the circumcised men were dissatisfied with the results of their circumcision.”

It isn’t surprising you couldn’t find healthy adult men willing to chop off the most sensitive part of their manhood.

Hard sell.

Hughes: http://www.cirp.org/library/general/hughes/

“John G. Swadey, MD (New England Journal of Medicine, 1987) states that circumcised men show a “somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis and scabies.“”

Risky behaviour.

“Our survey suggests that there is a difference between the sexuality of the circumcised and uncircumcised male during his lifetime. It also suggests that the uncircumcised male has a more favorable sexual compatibility in his marriage.

During my experiences in medicine and surgery, occasionally there arose the question of circumcision and sexual compatibility. It seemed to me that the uncircumcised male had less of a problem in sexual compatibility.”

Sadly, he died before we could see his data.
Someone else, do the study!

Do circumcised men around the world also have higher divorce rates?
Easy to observe.

The UK, latest from newspaper article:

“The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK was at a 45-year low, with 101,669 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales.”
And we have low circumcision rates, mostly religious.

https://circumcision.org/how-male-circumcision-harms-women/

“With circumcised partners, women were less likely to have one or multiple vaginal orgasms, and their circumcised partners were more likely to have a premature ejaculation.”

Explains why American men complain their wife doesn’t enjoy sex. It’s them.

ED is the modern PC term for impotence. 

https://www.livescience.com/15750-erectile-dysfunction-sexual-problems.html

Half of all American men 40-70 have trouble finishing (delayed orgasm), isn’t that oddly close to the circumcision rate?

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
That is hardly getting better with age.
2011 study year-55 study age median = 1956
80% circumcised, of those born in hospitals.

Some good news.

“The new statistics showed a steep drop in the number of circumcisions performed in the United States.
The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”

Current circumcision rate 2006: 56.1%

Good news for men.

Other news from 2018

https://www.circinfo.org/news_2018.html

“A Federal judge in Detroit, Michigan, has ruled that the Federal United States law criminalising any form of female genital mutilation (FGM) is unconstitutional.”
“Critics have since pointed out that these observations are equally applicable to circumcision of boys and that there were also grounds for finding the FGM law unconstitutional in the basis that it denied equal treatment to males.”

They’re pushing FGM because male is considered legal.
Two wrongs do make a right?

It is thus perfectly obvious that circumcision does not significantly reduce a male’s risk of contracting an STD, and that organisations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control itself) who identify prevention of STDs as the most important “benefit” of circumcision, do not know what they are talking about. There is in fact evidence going back to the 1850s that circumcised men are at greater risk of gonorrhoea and other urethral infections than men with normal genitalia. It may be that the foreskin acts as a barrier to the entry of certain pathogens.”

I wonder if circumcised men are likelier to carry super gonorrhea.

Seems like it.

A study of a rural community in South Africa has found that circumcised men generally are more likely to be infected with HIV, and that males circumcised in hospitals are 20 per cent more likely to be HIV positive than those left intact. Where 24 per cent of uncut men were found to be HIV positive, the incidence of HIV among males circumcised in hospitals was 31 per cent. These findings have come as a shock to the South African Medical authorities who have been following the orders of US and WHO health officials and “rolling out” the provision of mass circumcision as a response to the nation’s AIDS crisis. As the authors of the report comment ruefully, it seems that when it comes to the spread of HIV, anatomy is less important than behaviour – exactly what critics of the circumcision programs have been arguing for years. In fact, many other studies have found that in the real world there are many regions in Africa where there is little or no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between cut and uncut men, and that in quite a few places cut men are more likely to be HIV positive.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445

Don’t trust the WHO, they lie to you.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040454_Factors_associated_with_early_deaths_following_neonatal_male_circumcision_in_the_United_States_2001-2010
A new study finds that in the United States approximately 20 neonatal deaths per year can be attributed to circumcision. Neonatal here means within the first 30 days of life, so the study does not count deaths that occur after the first month. This might seem a small figure in relation to the overall number of births, but what death rate would be acceptable for a medically unnecessary operation performed without the consent of the subject? The abstract of the paper follows.

Ooh, salty.

We sought to quantify early deaths following neonatal circumcision (same hospital admission) and to identify factors associated with such mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent circumcision while hospitalized during the first 30 days of life from 2001-2010 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,899,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions). Note: this figure should not be interpreted as causal but correlational: it may include both under-counting and over-counting of deaths attributable to circumcision. Compared to survivors, subjects who died following newborn circumcision were more likely to have associated co-morbid conditions, such as cardiac disease (OR: 697.8 [378.5-1286.6] p<0.001), coagulopathy (OR: 159.6 [95.6-266.2] p<0.001), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR: 68.2 [49.1-94.6] p<0.001), or pulmonary circulatory disorders (OR: 169.5 [69.7-412.5] p<0.001). Recognizing these factors could inform clinical and parental decisions, potentially reducing associated risks.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2985419
“Permanent physical change” is also called disfigurement, in English.

“A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority because it violates the human rights of the boy on whom it is imposed. It first considers and dismisses the best interest test of parental authority which, by focusing on the well-being of the child as opposed to his (future) autonomy, fails to take the boy’s human rights sufficiently into account. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. This conclusion holds even if it could be assumed that the child would later come to endorse his circumcision: a proper understanding of autonomy implies that the religious sacrifice of a body part can only be authorised by the person whose body it is. Thus, ritual male circumcision is outside the scope of parental authority because it usurps the child’s right and responsibility to become the author of his own life.”

http://www.cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/5033/3371
“The statement is at pains to point out that the evidence as to the benefits and risks of circumcision is contradictory and inconclusive, and that much of it is of poor quality, especially studies claiming to show that circumcision has little impact on sexual sensation and function. The final conclusion is that while circumcision does offer some advantages, they are small, can be achieved by other, non-surgical means, and are outweighed by the risks and harms. This being the case, routine circumcision is not justified as a health measure and cannot be recommended.”

Very good news, their bold title:

… circumcision advocates have nowhere left to hide

The terms of the debate about non-therapeutic circumcision of minors have changed. The issue is no longer whether the so-called “benefits” outweigh the risks, or even whether the benefits outweigh the risks and harms. (As for the troglodytes who still mutter about pros and cons …) Coming on top of the judgement of a German court that circumcision is bodily harm and that it violates the child’s right to religious freedom, a leading legal philosopher now argues that boys have an inherent right not to be circumcised without medical need. In a paper forthcoming in Health Matrix, Stephen Munzer argues that current norms of autonomy and bodily integrity give male minors “a moral, anticipatory right-in-trust not to be circumcised without a medical indication.” Even more remarkably, it is now conceded by a prominent defender of religious/cultural circumcision that the practise is harmful and does violate the rights of the child. Writing in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Joseph Mazor acknowledges the physical and moral harms of circumcision and admits that the child has “a right of moderate strength” not to be subjected to “presumably harmful circumcision”.

Both Munzer and Mazor go on to argue that, given the importance of circumcision within the cultural/religious communities that follow this tradition, the practice should not be criminalised.

You admit it’s abuse, fuck you.

Religious rape isn’t legal either.

This is a fair point, far less important than the vital concession that circumcision is harmful and does violate the rights of the child to bodily integrity, personal autonomy and an open future. The argument about these points is over; the debate now is whether non-therapeutic circumcision is or should be illegal.

You’d have to re-write all abuse laws, NO.

No means NO.

Stephen Munzer. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix 28 (1) 2018: 1-77 (in press). Full text at SSRN.

Joseph Mazor. On the Strength of Children’s Right to Bodily Integrity: The Case of Circumcision. Journal of Applied Philosophy, on-line first, 24 May 2018.

Mazor https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12275
Munzer https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3180209

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction

The United States, a nation with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 47% of the world’s Viagra (Pfizer’s own figures). Turns out the same nation has been circumcising the majority of its male infants for generations.”
“A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that circumcision’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and circumcision.”

Full links in that article. It’s sickening how people try to justify this.

If the kid won’t get it done at 18, why does the parent want it done against their will?
That’s assault.

75% reduction study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
5x ED more likely: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02280.x/abstract

It also relates to alexithymia, a psychiatric condition
https://web.archive.org/web/20130831161657/http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4

 Alexithymia in this population of adult men is statistically significant for having experienced circumcision trauma and for erectile dysfunction drug use.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/24/male-circumcision-the-issue-that-ended-my-marriage
God doesn’t make mistakes, circumcision is offensive to God, if anything.

An idiot theorized in “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence”, that societal violence is caused by lack of pleasure, a theory so ridiculous if one only looks at Africa – highly sexual, high rape rate, high murder rate. It’s actually IQ. Sexual and violence behaviors differ according to standard IQ deviations, it is well known most violent criminals are less intelligent, yet highly promiscuous.

However, nations of high circumcision uptake do report more violence.

It’s also a proxy for low IQ, the practice of circumcision in countries predicts lower national IQ. I wonder if the circumcised are more likely to be low IQ, a correlation?

The UK used to circumcise more often until the NHS came along and didn’t allow doctors to charge for it, suddenly it ceased to be medically necessary!
The foreskin is the primary erogenous organ in men, the area in adults is 3×5 inches, with 50,000 nerve endings.
Minor circumcision is a human rights crisis.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august312012/circumcision-violence-rm.php

“In Norway, the only country that records the circumcision status of rapists, 2% of the population are circumcised and commit more than 80% of their rapes. And, since 1991 almost all wars involved one circumcised country with some conflicts between both factions being circumcised. This includes all USA conflicts since Vietnam.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if religion had nothing to do with war, just circumcision?

No other statistical records are kept regarding the individual and social percentile circumcision status of serial killers or rapists. Yet, over 50% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by the minority of men who belong to circumcising cultures. Circumcision status may factor highly in the USA’s highest of all other country’s incarceration rate to population.”

“Original FBI’s Criminal Profilers who led the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia know circumcision is a factor in some serial killings and partly responsible for America’s generalized asocial violence.”
“It has been inferred Robert Ressler, in an off the record comment when interviewed by Mothering Magazine’s web-editor, related the fact that the FBI realizes circumcision is a factor in violence. He explained they do not mention this because they would be considered raving lunatics and lose their jobs. Robert Ressler coined the term Serial Killer.”

Same: http://www.academia.edu/7151881/Circumcision_Serial_Killing_and_Criminal_Behavior_in_American_Medical_Violence

“Serial killing as we know it today began in the last two decades of the 19th Century. – Robert Ressler, FBI.[2]”

Same time circumcision picked up. Complete coincidence.

Related: https://www.thelocal.no/20131112/norway-to-legislate-on-circumcision

I wonder why….

What about studies on white men?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947

Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”

Crime and IQ

This is oddly missing but said
“In arguing that IQ is a significant cause of crime, the researchers cite studies to indicate that criminal populations generally have an average IQ of about 92, 8 points below the mean.”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=183065

1929 paper:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2123&context=jclc

“Illustrative to a still further degree of the point made above concerning the ineffectualness of the present penal system are the results of a comparison of the percentages for recidivism with those for long-term sentences.

Losing the death penalty is a mistake.

As may be seen above, although 56.7% of offenders are recidivistic or habitual offenders and hence incorrigible in the main, as has been mentioned above, only 16% to 23% are serving long term sentences. This fact, then, signifies that the greater per cent of recidivists are serving terms of more or less brevity. That little benefit to society may be expected from such terms is not to be doubted since sentences of three to five and even ten years are without effect upon recidivistic offenders and possess value only by virtue of segregating the offender for a while and thus sparing society a greater or less number of crimes.3‘ At best, such sentences, in so far as recidivists are concerned, constitute nothing more than a flimsy makeshift in dealing with the problem of repeated criminality. In-deed, the statistics of crime as well as the teachings of history confirm the absolute inadequacy of the present system of punishments against crime.12

Especially is this so in regard to the feebleminded recidivists who are accountable for a full 25% of the entire problem of repeated criminality and whose deficiency of intelligence effectually and completely militates against any possibility of regeneration or correction. That penalties are established by statutes and are based wholly upon a consideration of the material act constitutes an actual social injury since society thereby derives a false sense of having adequately and securely provided against a danger.

Because men are NOT made equal, biologically.
They should study criminal’s children to be sure.

In reality, it has not, for the harm is merely postponed. Commitment to prison should be determined not by the nature of the offense but by the nature of the offender, 33 and with a view toward the causes of the delinquency, the effect upon the individual, and the moral prognosis.3 4 Only in this way may adequate social provision be made for the warped, deficient, defective, and unregenerate enemies of the social order.”

Prison doesn’t work.

We know now from MRI psychopaths and other types literally gain pleasure from other’s pain and experience no/less fear and a neutral response to appeals for mercy. Something biologically less humane requires other treatment.

page 14 on the pdf looks at crime type

Married men are less likely to be criminals (selected by women)?

“Accordingly, the assumption of the stabilizing influence of marriage appears well substantiated. Or, it may be that the fundamental constitution of the delinquent is of such a nature that he is frequently antagonistic toward the assumption and maintenance of marital duties and thus fails even to experience contact with any presumably stabilizing influences of marriage. At any rate, marriage, together with any of the beneficial influences it may exert upon the individual, is of markedly less frequent occurrence among criminal classes than among the general population”

R-types.

“That slightly over 50% of criminals, including even the low grade morons, are married with the consequently increased possibilities of the propagation of the species is somewhat disheartening.”

Er, why isn’t there a basic legal requirement of an IQ test to marry?
Low IQ people cannot consent. To prove they can consent.

“This equality of incidence is strongly suggestive that the criminally inclined nature, regardless of intellectual endowment, is fundamentally lacking in those personal and social requisites essential for the assumption and maintenance of marital duties. Or it may be that this marked prevalence of divorce indicates the failure of the stabilizing influences of marriage and home life because of the inherent instability of the criminal classes preventing the reception of any such benefits.”

Part of the reason bachelors are looked down on.

And divorced men.

“As it is, the percentages of actually disrupted marriages range from 29 for the low grade morons to 36% for the group of subnormal intelligence and 32% for the normal intelligence group. And when it is considered that 36% to 58% of the groups respectively are still within the age group of 21 to 30 years, it is reasonable to suppose that a contrasting of these percentages with figures for a like proportion of the geners1 population would render the above figures comparably much higher.
However, from a eugenical point of view as regards the propagation of the species, this high percentage of disrupted marriages is a most hopeful sign.”

Let idiots get divorced!

“It will be noted at once that the greater number of children and the greater number of families with children occur in the groups of deficient intelligence, particularly so in the low grade moron group. This is quite in accord with the findings of other investigators and the generally conceived opinion of the greater fecundity of the classes of deficient intelligence.61”

R-selection, lower quality per child.

And another investigation of the Harvard Graduates of 1894 revealed 20% without children, 13.1% with one child, 18.1% with two children, 22.5% with three children, and 25.5% with four or more children. 65
This makes an average of 2.44 children for each individual, a figure which gives the college bred man of Harvard the lead over even the low grade moron delinquent. Further, it has been estimated by Kehrer that the proportion of childless marriages for civilized countries ranges between 10% and 15%,”; which means that the ordinary middle-class citizen, taking the criminalistic and the college-bred classes as the extremes, bears the burden of restocking the population.”

I bet that isn’t true now, they think they’re too good to have kids!

And that explains dwindling IQ compared to the Victorians, the middle class were less intelligent and the upper class dropped the ball. The middle class only seem intelligent due to their education.

The above table shows clearly that the foreign-born stock does produce more than its due quota of our specified delinquents, especially so in regard to those of deficient intelligence. This is most marked regarding the low grade morons, where the foreign-born stock produces more than 235% of its due quota of offenders as determined by population ratios while the proportions for the other three groups ranges from 125% for the group of normal intelligence to 144% for the high grade feebleminded delinquents.

This finding is substantiated by the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1910.98 and also by Laughlin in his report to the Congressional Committee. 99 And similar findings have been reported by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.'” In addition, Laughlin also found that the second generation of foreign stock had an increased crime incidence over and above that of foreign stock in general, probably because that generation represents the transitional stage between the discarding of the customs of the old country and the adopting of those of the new. Undoubtedly this fact accounts for a proportion of the increased percentages in the above table. Obviously then, there is an undeniable danger in the admission of unselected foreign stock, both from the aspect of their own undesirability and from the aspect of their reproduction of their kind. Hence, there is  an unquestionable and appealing need of a closer and more intelligent supervision of immigration, with more ample provision for the means of so doing.”

You lost the war.

You know you did.

A second consideration evident from the above table is the increase among offenders of individuals having one parent foreign-born and the other native-born. The percentages given above nearly double that for the general population. Various investigations have shown that there is a decided tendency for the home of mixed parental nativity to produce delinquents.”°

No, it’s because they’re mixed race.

That went off on a tangent but a potentially relevant one.

Unvaccinated mortality rate and scapegoating

Rhetoric: “If you don’t vaccinate, you’re much more likely to die.”
Fact: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00079/full

Title: “Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?” 2018

35 months? A decent study length, for once.

I could leave it at this but since “cherrypicked” is the next goalpost position they slide to, shamelessly, after claiming “no valid empirical studies”, this’ll be a slightly longish post. It’s a doozy. Bring tea. 8k words.

When studies are available, there is a range of errors in the method.
A range of “errors”. I also debunk the myth at the end of unvaccinated children being ‘dangerous’. It’s the biggest font, can’t miss it and also the “ahrp” link, if you text search.

You can ignore me, but not your loud conscience.

https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php

Mawson, published April 2017. STILL available, contrary to lies. Abstract:

Vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children, yet the long-term health outcomes of the vaccination schedule remain uncertain. Studies have been recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine to address this question. This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors. A cross-sectional study of mothers of children educated at home was carried out in collaboration with homeschool organizations in four U.S. states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Mothers were asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on their 6- to 12-year-old biological children with respect to pregnancy-related factors, birth history, vaccinations, physician-diagnosed illnesses, medications used, and health services. NDD, a derived diagnostic measure, was defined as having one or more of the following three closely-related diagnoses: a learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD. However, in a final adjusted model with interaction, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5). In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.

Bravo.

Let’s quote, shall we? I didn’t list everything sig, just the big findings.

Under ‘results’, 92% of the children studied were white, as a liar tries to claim later, race cannot be a factor preventing such studies. 8.5% high school or less, no SES confound. 91.2% Christian, other categories unlisted. 93.7% married women.

Table 3 contains chronic conditions.
ADHD 4.7% vacc 1% NOT – p=0.013
ASD 4.7% vacc 1% NOT – p=0.013
Learning disability 5.7% vacc, 1.2% NOT – p=0.003
Neurodevelopment Disorder 10.5% vacc, 3.1% NOT – p=< 0.001
Any Chronic Condition (inc minor) 44% vacc, 24.9% NOT – p=< 0.001.

Table 6
Used antibiotics in the past 12 months p=< 0.001
Sick visit to doctor in the past year p=< 0.001
Seen doctor for checkup in past 12 months p=< 0.001

The figure shows that the single largest group of diagnoses was learning disability (n=15) followed by ASD (n=9), and ADHD (n=9), with smaller numbers comprising combinations of the three diagnoses.”

NDD “Two factors that almost reached statistical significance were vaccination during pregnancy (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.0, 6.3) and three or more fetal ultrasounds (OR 3.2, 95% CI: 0.92, 11.5).”

Table 7 NDD and vaccination status p=<0.001

Following a recommendation of the Institute of Medicine [19] for studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, this study focused on homeschool children ages 6 to 12 years”
“Data from the survey were also used to determine whether vaccination was associated specifically with NDDs, a derived diagnostic category combining children with the diagnoses of learning disability, ASD and/or ADHD.”

Important.

“With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD.”

The vaccinated were also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized.”

“The reason for hospitalization and the age of the child at the time were not determined, but the latter finding appears consistent with a study of 38,801 reports to the VAERS of infants who were hospitalized or had died after receiving vaccinations.

I don’t think they included deceased children (no) in this one so the numbers would go up.

The study reported a linear relationship between the number of vaccine doses administered at one time and the rate of hospitalization and death; moreover, the younger the infant at the time of vaccination, the higher was the rate of hospitalization and death [55]. The hospitalization rate increased from 11% for 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for 8 doses (r2 = 0.91), while the case fatality rate increased significantly from 3.6% for those receiving from 1-4 doses to 5.4 % for those receiving from 5-8 doses.”

Informed consent?

“However, the ASD prevalence of 2.24% from a CDC parent survey is lower than the study rate of 3.3%. Vaccinated males were significantly more likely than vaccinated females to have been diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, and NDD. The percentage of vaccinated males with an NDD in this study (14.4%) is consistent with national findings based on parental responses to survey questions, indicating that 15% of U.S. children ages 3 to 17 years in the years 2006-2008 had an NDD [28].”

“Vaccination was strongly associated with both otitis media and pneumonia, which are among the most common complications of measles infection [56,57]. The odds of otitis media were almost four-fold higher among the vaccinated (OR 3.8, 95% CI: 2.1, 6.6) and the odds of myringotomy with tube placement were eight-fold higher than those of unvaccinated children (OR 8.0, 95% CI: 1.0, 66.1).”

“found an increased frequency of M. catarrhalis colonization in the vaccinated group compared to the partly immunized and control groups (76% vs. 62% and 56%, respectively). A high rate of Moraxella catarrhalis colonization is associated with an increased risk of AOM [65].”
“These observations have suggested that eradication of vaccine serotype pneumococci can be followed by colonization of other bacterial species in the vacant nasopharyngeal niche, leading to disequilibria of bacterial composition (dysbiosis) and increased risks of otitis media. Long-term monitoring has been recommended as essential for understanding the full implications of vaccination-induced changes in microbiota structure [67].”

After adjustment, the factors that remained significantly associated with NDD were vaccination, nonwhite race, male gender, and preterm birth.”

“The present study suggests that vaccination could be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of NDD but also that preterm birth by itself may have a lesser or much reduced role in NDD (defined here as ASD, ADHD and/or a learning disability) than currently believed. The findings also suggest that vaccination coupled with preterm birth could increase the odds of NDD beyond that of vaccination alone.”

Conclusion:
Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.

Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.”

True. Tell Gorski that. Further reading.

55 Goldman GS, Miller NZ (2012) Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol 31: 1012-1021
71 Fisker AB, Hornshøj L, Rodrigues A, Balde I, Fernandes M, et al. (2014) Effects of the introduction of new vaccines in Guinea-Bissau on vaccine coverage, vaccine timeliness, and child survival: an observational study. Lancet Glob Health 2: e478-e487.

However, tetanus might be a good one to get, if you are likely to be exposed.
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/Article_2010.pdf?ua=1

Preferably before pregnancy.

The foreign death rate for rotavirus doesn’t actually check if vaccines decrease deaths?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309911702535

Flu benefit lies
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7578881_Influenza_Vaccination_and_Mortality_in_the_United_States

<10% elderly deaths from flu in USA, claimed benefit five-fold.

Infant mortality:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
In conclusion “These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”
“A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

True.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/182/9/791/96333
Vaccination and All-Cause Child Mortality From 1985 to 2011: Global Evidence From the Demographic and Health Surveys
“Childhood vaccination, and in particular measles and tetanus vaccination, is associated with substantial reductions in childhood mortality.”
Nobody really dies from measles anymore.
Their estimations, not a real study.
“The results indicate that measles vaccination is associated with a relative risk of mortality of 0.83, whereas maternal tetanus vaccination is associated with a relative risk of 0.92
Really? So little. I retract the tetanus thing.
“Generally, it is not possible to estimate the association between vaccination status and mortality at the individual level in household survey data, such as the DHS, because the vaccination status of children who have died is not usually reported (36)”
Lying directly. So just get the data?
“An additional advantage of this aggregate analysis is that it allows us to capture potential herd immunity (37–39), which would not typically be observed in an individual-level analysis.”

36 Cutts FT, Izurieta HS, Rhoda DA. Measuring coverage in MNCH: design, implementation, and interpretation challenges associated with tracking vaccination coverage using household surveys. PLoS Med. 2013;105:e1001404.
I hope I’m including enough references, wouldn’t want to disappoint anyone.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/116/3/510/99513?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Measles study method issues.

Growing infertility epidemic, CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/whitepaper-pg1.htm#tabs-793807-1

“Although some perceive infertility as a quality-of-life issue, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) regards infertility as a disease (3). A U.S. Supreme Court opinion agreed with a lower court statement that reproduction is a major life activity and confirmed that conditions that interfere with reproduction should be regarded as disabilities, as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (4).”

And according to international law, deliberately bringing about impaired fertility is GENOCIDE, see d.

Wait, is preventing reproduction (a “major life activity”) by forced poverty, thanks to tax redistribution so others CAN have kids, illegal? Seems so.

“Although the focus of research and services has traditionally been on women (and, as a consequence, much of this article reflects it), fertility impairments may be just as common among men (6). The statistics cited above distinguish impaired fecundity from infertility. In this article we refer to infertility more broadly, including all fertility impairments. Recurrent pregnancy loss (miscarriage) is a component of impaired fecundity, distinct from infertility (ASRM, unpublished data) and is not included in this presentation.”

It started with Boomers, the free love generation, putting off reproduction. I wonder if STDs might be a cause?

“African American women had a twofold increase in odds of reporting a history of infertility (9).”

Mixed women? Is the same true in full African immigrants?

“Different subgroups may have infertility of different etiology.”

“In 2006, reported chlamydia rates were eight times higher among African Americans than among whites, highlighting the large disparities in this important risk factor for infertility (13).”

“Other modifiable factors contribute to the burden of infertility. Although the proportion of male factor infertility due to varicocele is unknown, this common condition is reported in approximately half of the inpatient surgery services and approximately two thirds of office visits for male factor infertility in the United States (14)”

“Although the proportion of infertility that is due to tobacco smoking is unknown, infertility specialists are increasingly aware that exposure to tobacco products can cause infertility”

Including secondhand?
The ban moaners have explaining to do.

“Obesity in men is associated with erectile dysfunction and decreased androgen production, but its effects on male fertility are not as clear (30).”

“A public health strategy focusing on primary prevention (e.g., through removal of risk factors for infertility such as those described above) would reduce the prevalence of infertility,”

Why do I mention that? Here.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640?journalCode=uteh20
“A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection” 2018

“Shortly after the vaccine was licensed, several reports of recipients experiencing primary ovarian failure emerged.”

trans. Instant shutdown.

“Using logistic regression to analyze the data, the probability of having been pregnant was estimated for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot. If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted.”

h/t https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-safety/vaccine-boom-population-bust-study-queries-the-link-between-hpv-vaccine-and-soaring-infertility/

“If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children.”

Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated.”

“Male sperm counts have nosedived in recent decades – scientists published data last year showing that globally, they have dropped 50 percent in just the past 40 years – signalling serious unidentified environmental hazards.”

They should look at whether r or K-types have higher or lower than normal fertility.

HPV vaccination – as well as tetanus vaccination – has been linked in medical literature to a condition called anti-phospholipid syndrome which is a poorly defined disease caused when the immune system erroneously manufactures antibodies against certain lipid proteins found in membranes that are in a host of tissues — eyes, heart, brain, nerves, skin – and the reproductive system. One 2012 study by Serbian researchers at the Institute for Virology, Vaccines and Ser “Torlak” found that “hyperimmunisation” of the immune system with different adjuvants, including aluminum, in mice, resulted in induction of antiphospholipid syndrome and the tandem lowering of fertility.””

That study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235053

You cannot discuss female fertility without male.

“Other research has implicated aluminum in conception problems. French infertility researcher Jean-Philippe Klein and his colleagues at the University of Lyon published the results of their 2014 study of the sperm of men seeking assistance at a French infertility clinic.”

That study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25461904

From it:

This study provided unequivocal evidence of high concentrations of aluminum in human semen and suggested possible implications for spermatogenesis and sperm count.

I recommend chelation therapy studies, for all concerned with what I think.

And back:

Merck’s HPV vaccine test ““placebos” contained both the high doses of aluminium as well as another scary ingredient, polysorbate 80. This chemical has exhibited delayed ovarian toxicity to rat ovaries at all injected doses tested over a tenfold range.”

I’m sure they aren’t planning to make you infertile. (Scroll down).

“None of the trials accurately assessed the long-term impact of the vaccine on the reproductive health of girls”

Actually many brought that up at the time it was pushed.

“Why make a vaccine for a disease that afflicts less than 0.3% of people in their lifetime?”

It’s now being pushed on men like they’re gay (anal cancer risk). Penile cancer may go up though thanks to anal sex.

[checked:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/penile-cancer/incidence

increase of 23% of this rare cancer alone since early 90s, when porn use was lower]

Actually, decided to look up anal cancer, look at this:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/anal-cancer#heading-Zero
“Since the early 1990s, anal cancer incidence rates have increased by almost two-thirds (63%) in the UK. Rates in males have increased by a fifth (20%), and rates in females have increased by almost two times (99%).”
What could possibly account for such a huge sex difference? I wonder…
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/anal-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two
“91% of anal cancer cases in the UK are caused by HPV infection.
Around 91% of anal cancers in women and 75% in men are HPV-positive, a meta-analysis showed.
Anal cancer risk may be higher in people participating in anal sexual behaviours (including but not limited to receptive anal intercourse)”

MAY BE?

https://www.medinstitute.org/2016/08/the-consequences-of-heterosexual-anal-sex-for-women/

“In the case of heterosexual anal intercourse it is the woman who is at risk to develop fecal incontinence.”
Lovely way to treat the wife.
http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v111/n2/full/ajg2015419a.html

“The American Cancer Society reports, “Receptive anal intercourse also increases the risk of anal cancer in both men and women, particularly in those younger than 30.” 7 HPV (human papillomavirus) is the main cause of anal cancer; but apparently, anal intercourse in particular increases the likelihood that the virus will attack the anus or rectum.”
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/analcancer/detailedguide/anal-cancer-risk-factors

Why does this remind me of the Pill?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2126920
Relevance of immuno-contraceptive vaccines for population control
sterilization!


Gates Foundation own vaccine stock
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

High-titre measles vaccine and female mortality
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)14867-2/fulltext
“Hence, the new hypothesis has created increasing consistency in existing data, which suggest that causal processes might be involved. This consistency across different studies should reduce the likelihood of chance as an explanation.”

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/underreporting-vaccine-adverse-events
Underreporting Vaccine Adverse Events
“How can they dismiss placebo-controlled trials that raise serious possibilities of vaccine-caused illness?”

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/pill-temporarily-diminish-fertility-study-article-1.1850643

No comment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673681925150

“Whatever their previous menstrual history women, especially the nulliparous, who are concerned about their future fertility should be recommended oral contraception in preference to an intrauterine device.”
Compared to?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967601/#B15
2018 Discrepancies in the evaluation of the safety of the human papillomavirus vaccine
“In this article we bring the attention on certain adverse effects of the vaccine against HPV that have not been well studied as they are not well defined.”
It seems the WHO lied.
“We also compare the different approaches on HPV vaccine policies regarding its adverse reactions in countries like Japan and Colombia, vs. the recommendations issued by the WHO.”

https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0931-2
“Pandemic mortality rates in 1918 and in 2009 were highest among those with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES). Despite this, low SES groups are not included in the list of groups prioritized for pandemic vaccination, and the ambition to reduce social inequality in health does not feature in international and national pandemic preparedness plans. We describe plans for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between SES and pandemic outcomes during the last five pandemics.”
Interesting.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18305607
Estimating the annual attack rate of seasonal influenza among unvaccinated individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Conclusion
Overall, we found that approximately 1 in 5 unvaccinated children and 1 in 10 unvaccinated adults were estimated to be infected by seasonal influenza annually, with rates of symptomatic influenza roughly half of these estimates. Our findings help to establish the background risk of seasonal influenza infection in unvaccinated individuals.”
Okay, compared to? Why not look at vaccinated?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18305462
2018 Does consecutive influenza vaccination reduce protection against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Dose-response results (≥3 consecutive vaccinations) did show a reduction in effectiveness.
Certainty in the evidence is very low due to inconsistency and imprecision.
The findings do not rule out the possibility of reduced effectiveness.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1830094X
2018 Influenza vaccine effectiveness in older adults compared with younger adults over five seasons
“Conclusions
Over 5 seasons, influenza vaccination provided similar levels of protection among older and younger adults, with lower levels of protection against influenza A(H3N2) in all ages.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1631218X
Effectiveness of MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis
“Adjuvantation with MF59 may increase vaccine effectiveness among seniors.”

Lucky them.

http://ahrp.org/immunocompromised-children-what-are-their-infectious-risks-from-the-unvaccinated/
Read the whole thing for this link, it’s short. Quoting in case it gets taken down.

EXCUSE:

“In the last few days there have been multiple news articles and testimonies in the Maine and Vermont legislatures about the need to impose vaccine mandates to protect immunocompromised children.[1] [2] I attended the vaccine bills’ hearing in Augusta, Maine on May 11, which lasted into the night. I also attended the Vermont Senate hearing 3 weeks earlier. The Vermont Senate committee said it would only hear testimony from physicians, which is why I was invited. Not very many doctors are familiar with the vaccine literature. Vaccines are, surprisingly, an arcane area of medicine.

I feel safe.

Unfortunately, I heard not a single expert (at either hearing) provide any data about the magnitude of the problem that vaccine mandates are supposed to fix. In fact, I was quite surprised to learn that helping the immunocompromised seemed to be the major justification to remove vaccine exemptions.

I heard no one mention the fact that vaccine efficacies of 40%, 60%, 80% (approximately correct for influenza, diphtheria, mumps vaccines) might also pose some risk to the immunodeficient. (These are just examples; most other vaccines have efficacy in the 60-90% range.) Actually, any statistician could tell you that low efficacy poses considerably more risk than exemption rates of 1-5% in Maine (depending on which required vaccine we are discussing). Vaccines with low efficacy make the claim of herd immunity a joke–but did even one “expert” at the hearings know or care?

Herd immunity of 100% (impossible) wouldn’t prevent mortality.

Herd immunity is a myth. The extreme case’s claim is demonstrably false.

How much risk is actually posed by “vaccine-preventable” diseases to the immunocompromised? I reviewed the most common infections seen in those at highest risk: stem cell transplant recipients[3] and leukemia patients.[4]

Here is what I found….”

Shit, someone who cares.

“The limited data show that community acquired respiratory viruses (CARVs) and herpesviruses are the most common pathogens.”
“The reports on human herpes virus (HHV)-6 diseases are increasing…”
“Herpesvirus pneumonia is usually caused by reactivation of latent viruses which occurs in severe immunosuppression.”
“… viral encephalitis was mainly caused by human herpes virus (HHV)-6, followed by EBV, HSV, JC virus, CMV, VZV in the recipients of allo-HSCT. Our data showed that herpesvirus-associated encephalitis was mainly caused by EBV followed by HSV, CMV and VZV…
The most frequent pathogens of viral hepatitis are hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Besides these, other viruses such as CMV and HSV may also result in hepatitis. Hepatitis B and C can be caused by either virus reactivation or blood transmission…””

There are also many bacterial and fungal infections they may develop: too many to list. Of the many infections these patients tend to develop, the only 3 infections commonly seen, for which there exists a vaccine and which spread between children, are chickenpox (varicella zoster virus or VZV), influenza, and rotavirus.

Rotavirus is a relatively mild gastrointestinal virus and mortality, even in those with impaired immunity, is rare.[5]

Influenza is a real concern, but influenza vaccines are notoriously ineffective. This year, CDC said the vaccine had 19% efficacy.[6] (A Canadian study found no efficacy for this year’s flu vaccine.) Over the past ten years, CDC’s efficacy estimates for influenza vaccines averaged 40%.[7] So even if everyone in America was vaccinated, you could not generate herd immunity for influenza. You could not achieve the desired “cocoon” for those most vulnerable.

Remember the word cocoon, please.

Chickenpox is caused by a virus that, once you have been infected, will live forever in your nerve cells. The vaccine virus also does this. Immunocompromised patients developing chickenpox/VZV infections are usually reactivating latent virus long present in their own bodies. Only very rarely are they “catching” chickenpox virus from someone else. Fortunately, we have antiviral drugs and immune globulin to prevent and treat these common reactivations.”

Her bold in this paragraph:

“Let me repeat: vulnerable, immunodeficient children are susceptible to many viral, bacterial and fungal infections, but these are very rarely caused by child to child spread of microorganisms for which we have vaccines. They are listed in footnotes 3 and 4.

FYI

[3] http://www.jhoonline.org/content/pdf/1756-8722-6-94.pdf
[4] http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/39664.pdf

For those who want to waste my time digging up a never-ending stream of references.

It is troubling that vulnerable families have been encouraged to fear and stigmatize unvaccinated children, when the rates of primary and secondary vaccine failures (i.e., number of vaccinated kids who lack immunity despite their vaccinations) are far greater than the rates of children lacking vaccinations. [CDC’s 2012-13 kindergarten vaccine exemption rates by state ranged from a low of 0.1% to a high of 6.5%.]

In fact, the vaccine failures pose a much larger risk. But are the immunocompromised suffering and dying due to other childrens’ vaccine failures? We are not hearing about it.

KEY:

If the vulnerable are not being harmed by vaccinated children who lack immunity, then it follows they are not suffering from exposure to the unvaccinated, either.

LOGICALLY.

You have no right to forbid children their education on medical grounds, it is a right.

Low IQ is medical too, you heap those ghetto kids in. Being stabbed is a more prevalent danger.

Don’t vulnerable families have enough real problems, without adding unfounded and unjustified fears? Isn’t it time to drop this canard?

But then how will they emotionally blackmail us into buying their products?

The gaslighting of “you’re killing babies” – seldom levied at the aborting parents?

As I said in an earlier post, the last measles deaths in the United States (there were 2) occurred in 2003. One was elderly; the other was aged 13 and had had a bone marrow transplant. I was unable to learn if his infection was from a vaccine strain or wild-type measles virus. Not a single American has died from measles since.

We need to know if vulnerable, immunocompromised children are catching and dying from vaccine-preventable diseases, and from whom they are catching these diseases: from the vaccinated, from the unvaccinated, or from their own latent viruses? From vaccine strains or wild-type infections?

from WHOM indeed

test the genetics of what they come down with, check for a match to the vaccine genes

if they don’t match, they’d have something to brag about

How many children are affected? Where are they? Which diseases are killing them? I am not finding evidence of a problem in the medical literature.”

Listen and obey.

Fine, let’s look up the strawman victims being used to push this.

http://lymphosign.com/doi/10.14785/lymphosign-2016-0007

“In the above regard, vaccines play an important role in preventing infections in the immunocompromised host. Prevention can be achieved by a combination of strategies. Besides vaccination of the immunocompromised patient (in whom immune responses might be suboptimal), there is a recognition of the importance of the “cocoon strategy” that is widely used in protecting susceptible patients from specific vaccine-preventable diseases (Forsyth et al. 2015). In the context of immunocompromised patients, one vaccinates parents, caregivers, and other close contacts, which provides indirect protection by preventing disease in those in close proximity to the immunocompromised person.”

Parents are the primary disease vector (risk) to their immunocompromised children.
THE PARENTS.

Proven by the cocoon strategy designed specifically for compromised children.

Given the frequent physical interactions, this is quite obvious.

They don’t get to blame the world for their mistakes. If the kid catches something, they should immediately test the parent and drain some antibodies.

The latest data claims immunocompromised children MUST STILL BE VACCINATED.

https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/immunization-of-the-immunocompromised-child-key-principles

As in, no, your child is not exempt.

Highlights:

Indirect protection is provided by ensuring that all household members and other close contacts are immunized against infections that they may transmit to the immunocompromised child”

Inactivated vaccines may be given safely to immunocompromised patients, but responses may be diminished or absent, and increases in dose or in number of doses may be indicated (e.g., hepatitis B, conjugate pneumococcal vaccines) [1]–[4].”

Live vaccines may cause disease by uncontrolled replication and are usually contraindicated in immunocompromised individuals, with the exception of those with isolated IgA deficiency, IgG subclass deficiency, complement deficiency, or anatomical or functional asplenia. Another exception is that live viral vaccines are safe for most children with phagocyte or neutrophil disorders (including chronic granulomatous disease) but live bacterial vaccines (e.g., BGG, live typhoid vaccine) are contraindicated [1][3]. Live vaccines may be given to individuals with HIV infection who are not severely immunocompromised [1]–[3].”

EVEN THE HIV KIDS GET IT.

Who do you have to hide behind now?

Don’t blame the world for your kid getting sick, scapegoating doesn’t reduce your personal culpability.
Scapegoating is disgusting.
Sacrificing other people’s kids doesn’t make you exempt.

Additional vaccines: Immunocompromised children may require vaccines that are not routinely recommended for all children (e.g., 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide), or not routinely given beyond a certain age (e.g., Haemophilus influenzae type b).”

They need MORE, MORE VACCINES.

Assuming other people can do your job for you is ass-backwards wrong!

Even if everyone in the world got vaccinated, your child would still need vaccines, according to the authorities you appeal to!

“The duration of the immune response may be diminished, necessitating extra booster doses (e.g., children at ongoing risk of hepatitis B exposure should undergo annual testing for hepatitis B antibody and receive booster doses if indicated) [2].”
When long-term immunosuppression is required, inactivated vaccines are given when the patient is on the lowest anticipated dose of immunosuppressive agents. Also, if feasible, immunosuppression is held or reduced temporarily to maximize response.”

MUH Medication – NOT AN EXCUSE.

“Response to a vaccine should not be assumed”

Refusing to listen to these OFFICIAL MEDICAL GUIDELINES makes you an abusive parent, according to the Canadian government.
Lovely.

General antibody production problem?

“No delay is required for live oral or intranasal vaccines or for inactivated vaccines [5].”

u r WRONG, Karens. Mz ‘my kid can’t get any’. Not a barrier.

But, I hear you cry, what about the cancer patients?

Low, but K. I am willing…. to go there. This once.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448241/

OT “reactivation infection with herpes group viruses”
where would children get that?
More evidence in favour of slut shaming.

You might notice something odd, a paper on managing infection risk in cancer patients doesn’t mention vaccines.
At all.

Conclusion “Infection in immunocompromised patients offers a particular clinical challenge because the pathogens are often unusual, and appropriate treatment must begin early in the course of the illness. These patients also must receive the highest tolerated dosages of antimicrobial agents and for maximum durations. Prophylactic antibiotics should also be given based on the pathogens likely to reactivate during the time of more severe immunosuppression.”

They’re commonly struck down by unusual microbes, not the ones we’re told to vaccinate for!

To close, here is a paranoid misogynistic shill telling us we’re evil for wanting the standard of proof in medicine, and anyway, it would cost money. Can’t put the breaks on the gravy train!

“The low vaccination rates in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods have been attributed to a faulty perception that fervently religious Jews are protected from infection by the insulated nature of their communities, as well as discredited rumors that the life-saving practice is dangerous.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/measles-vaccination-rates-in-anti-vaxxer-areas-of-jerusalem-leap-to-80/

(((Gorski))) has no conflict of interest at all, as you’ll see.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/

“However, there is one trait of the anti-vaccine movement that, however its camouflaging plumage may evolve, never, ever changes. It is as immutable as believers say that God is. That trait is that, whatever other claims, the anti-vaccine movement makes, at its core it is always about the vaccines. Always…
at its core the anti-vaccine movement is about fear and loathing of vaccines. Always. When inconvenient science doesn’t support their views, anti-vaccine activists either ignore the science, distort the science, or launch ad hominems against the people doing the science or citing the science. And, as I said before, the claims of the anti-vaccine movement evolve. Never again will the anti-vaccine movement make the horrific mistake of yoking itself to a hypothesis that is as easily testable”

Just do the studies, shill.
That bolded contradicts his conclusion. We noticed.

“Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines (the sole exception being some flu vaccines),”

Wait, mercury is in childhood vaccines still, known neurotoxin?
It’s also in the adult flu jab, which others? That explains why the elderly here pop their clogs after getting one.
We all know people.

“This “too many too soon” chant has lead to a demand by the anti-vaccine movement that the government conduct a large study of “unvaccinated” versus the “vaccinated” children to compare them for health outcomes and, especially, the prevalence of autism.”

They refuse despite that being the gold standard.

How queer.

“I don’t think that people like J.B. Handley realize how risky their gambit is.”

It isn’t just the gravy train, it’s the crazy train!

What echo chamber?

The Ivory Tower sure can echo!

“Such a study would have a very high risk of torpedoing virtually everything the anti-vaccine movement has been working toward in terms of promoting their message of fear about vaccines as being somehow credible (or at least not unreasonable) and based on science (more on that later).”

Then do it.

They want to be proven wrong, huh? Like… scientists?
Shit, if only that were your job. If you only received taxpayer money from these people too.
We live in a society – where you need to do what people pay you for.

Comparisons allowed on a single vaccine basis are clear (top link) so I’d expect a compounded, huge differential between the complete schedule and none whatsoever. The former is sufficient evidence to conduct the latter.

Of course, Ms. Tamaro is either ignorant or disingenuous herself in that some anti-vaccine advocates do indeed call for just such a study, even going so far as to demand a randomized, double-blinded study. J.B. Handley himself has attacked people who correctly call demands for such a study “unethical.””

Correctly? First harm none. Burden of proof.
Are you sure correctly is your word of choice?
He completely dismisses the woman on no grounds.

She says:

“Research studies are divided into two categories, observational studies and experimental studies. An observational study observes individuals and measures variables of interest but does not attempt to influence the responses. (The “epidemiological” studies to which Dr. Insel refers are actually observational studies.) An experimental study, on the other hand, deliberately imposes some treatment on individuals in order to observe their responses; the purpose of an experiment is to study whether the treatment causes a change in the response.”

True, you could find plenty of volunteers to submit data of what they were GOING TO DO ANYWAY.
Why not collect the evidence?

“This paragraph just goes to show how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Misogynist.

but no observational study has been done comparing the prevalence of autism diagnoses in a vaccinated human population compared to an unvaccinated human population. When Dan Olmsted points out that he has identified large populations of unvaccinated children in the United States and asks why a study has not been done on them, he is actually asking why an observational study has not been done.”

She is being perfectly reasonable.

He ignores this question.

“When Senator Harkin asks Dr. Insel why a study has not been done on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children, he too is actually asking why an observational study has not been done to date. Dr. Insel, however, chooses to respond by saying that an experimental study would be required in order to resolve the issue.”

Get someone else to do it and pull his funding.
This is fraud. They are refusing to do their job.

Playing shell games means you are not qualified.

“ignoring the fact that there have been calls from the anti-vaccine movement for experimental studies, which, of course, would be highly unethical because they would leave large numbers of children completely unvaccinated and thus vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases”

that is your hypothesis, NOT a fact
this is WHY we need studies
the vaccine failure children are vulnerable, not biologically bulletproof
these intellectually dishonest douches, e.g.

“In any case, here’s where Tamara goes right off the deep end:

He…. he literally says that. Go look.

“”I would like to point out the epidemiological similarity between smoking/lung cancer and vaccines/autism. Smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer, yet not a single experimental study on humans was ever done – all of the human studies proving that smoking causes lung cancer were observational. The experimental studies were performed on research animals only. Attached at the end of this letter is a lesson taken verbatim from an introductory course in college statistics describing how the connection between smoking and lung cancer was made.””

Proven fact?
Proven fact is ‘off the deep end’?

Introductory course on statistics – she has a sense of humour, this is basic.

“Both Prometheus and Autism Diva enumerated the numerous flaws and ethical lapses in that experiment.”

So what? Try to replicate it or STFU.
Ethical lapses – for data we ALREADY HAVE.

Does Gorski own a time machine?
Let’s all entrust the safety of American children to one ‘autism diva’.

“Then there was the more recent (and even more unethical) Laura Hewitson experiment looking at vaccinated and unvaccinated Macaque monkey infants. I was appalled at how badly designed and grossly unethical that experiment was, not to mention at the enormous undisclosed conflicts of interest of the investigators.”

In your opinion.
Screeching about ethics won’t change biology.

“The problem, of course, is that there is not yet a good animal model of autism”

In your opinion.

So all your method ‘flaws’ you spot make it impossible to meet your standard. Wow.

“Moreover, the history of such research (i.e., Hornig and Hewitson) is not exactly cause for optimism, given how badly done these studies were.”

In your opinion.
The weasel words in this should be studied.

So the gist of this ENTIRE LENGTHY POST is “don’t try, don’t note data that already exists, the method is always wrong, the models aren’t good enough and whatever you do, IT’S UNETHICAL” as if that’s ever stopped science before.
Didn’t the vaccination guy abuse his children?

https://curiosity.com/topics/thank-edward-jenner-and-cow-pus-for-vaccines-curiosity/

Yup.

Where’s the kitchen sink? Oh, it comes. At the end.

“While she is correct to say that an experimental (i.e., randomized, blinded) study is not always necessary to provide sufficient evidence of causation to conclude that there is causation, she’s picked the wrong example for a number of reasons.”

He’s beating his strawmen hard.

In any case, Ms. Tamara is also wrong when she says that a study of the vaccinated and unvaccinated has never been undertaken.”

She’s right but she’s wrong, guys!

The study he discusses blames RACIAL DIFFERENCES for why his comparison ‘didn’t count’.

But, you said about how it hasn’t been done earlier and later you say it hasn’t been done because statistics?

He doesn’t have the Mawson study above.

It’s this study he is referring to and weirdly, if you follow his link nothing comes up.
PAYWALL. I smelled bullshit before but linking the wrong URL?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/1/187
Here it is, the right link.

Parts he didn’t quote:

“Unvaccinated children are at increased risk of acquiring and transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases.”

What bias? And as opposed to what? Increased compared to….?

The largest numbers of unvaccinated children lived in counties in California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, and Michigan.”
“Unvaccinated children have characteristics that are distinctly different from those of undervaccinated children. Unvaccinated children are clustered geographically, increasing the risk of transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases to both unvaccinated and undervaccinated children.”

So it just says who they are (and Jews are white here) and nothing whatsoever about HEALTH OUTCOMES, as he implied it did.

He LIED. Please, check. I implore you.
Lie of omission is still a lie. Blatant intellectual dishonesty.

The topic is health outcomes, Gorski. We could compare the hair colour of the vaccinated/not (that study essentially does) and it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. Clutching at straws, why?

I can only conclude that Ms. Tamara is also quite naive in that she clearly has no clue just how much money and how many children an observational study of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated would require to do properly, much less how tricky it would be to control for confounders, given that the unvaccinated vary in significant ways from the vaccinated.”

OH, THE SHILL WANTS MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.
Shocker. Sounds like he’s holding you to ransom.

But he knows there are huge differences. Huh.

“Skeptical blogger extraordinaire Prometheus tells the tale. First, he points out how few completely unvaccinated children there are to study, perhaps around 50,000 in the entire U.S., in the 3-6 year old age cohort that would be most fruitful to do a study looking at autism incidence in the vaccinated and unvaccinated.”

Perhaps?

What, so let’s not bother? Yes, let’s listen to a blogger.
A ‘skeptic’, no less. Saying no to everything isn’t hard.

Well, plugging those numbers in – along with the current 1 in 150 autism prevalence – we find that we need over 360,000 children in each group to detect a 10% difference (you can try it yourself here). Unfortunately, that is more than the total number of unvaccinated children in the US, so that’s not going to happen.”

Wait, numbers you literally just made up? And the highest, most unlikely prevalence?
84% of statistics are made up, including that one.
Again, don’t bother is the best you can come up with? Over time you’d get enough data.
A 1% increased risk is medically valid, their significance in medicine is 0.001%.

What can we get with our “sample” of 49,652 unvaccinated children? If we manage to include each and every unvaccinated child in the US in the study, we could detect a 26% or more difference in autism prevalence.”

Why not do it, the kids already exist in that condition?

The data is RIGHT THERE.

Of course, it’s not even remotely practical to expect to get 100% of the unvaccinated children in the country into a study.”

So don’t try?

“How more about a practical number – say, 10% of them?”

Bullshit artist literally making up “samples” with quote marks is the best argument they have.

“That would allow us to detect a 70% or greater difference – about a three-fold difference in autism prevalence between the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.”

Okay, so at least conduct A study?
Why not?
Why say, oh, let’s not bother, we know the results?
That is not science, but faith. Fuck these baby-killers.
If you know it’s safe, why not check?

Shut your critics up?

Does anyone here think that parents who fervently believe that vaccines cause autism would accept negative results from a study that’s only powered to detect a three-fold difference in autism rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated as sufficiently reassuring to accept the current vaccination as safe?”

Sure, you won’t do it because the people who want it wouldn’t like the results.
Not you. The people who want it.
You’d definitely accept results that show you’ve been encouraging child abuse for years?

Appeal to incredulity. Someone else’s.

“Given the religious fervor with which the anti-vaccine movement clings to the myth that vaccines cause autism, I doubt that it would accept a negative result from a study powered to detect a 1% difference in autism rates as sufficiently reassuring to abandon its fear.”

If it’s a myth, settle it with the study. It doesn’t have to be specific to autism. Health outcomes.

Any percentage is better than nothing!

“Moreover, as Prometheus tells us, even the study described above would be inordinately expensive and difficult to do.”

Who cares is we’re advocating the harm of children, it’s expensive to prove this thing is safe?

Wasn’t Prometheus tortured?

“Finally, let’s “run the numbers” on a more practical study – one where we are able to enroll 500 unvaccinated children and 5000 fully vaccinated controls”

Made up numbers, again.
You said there are thousands of unvaccinated in America.
Why not 5000/5000? Why not even groups? That would be ‘practical’.

“I can’t help but note that the study described by Prometheus would probably fail to find the well-known increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease due to smoking, the more so since the incidence of lung cancer in nonsmokers is considerably lower than 1 in 150, which is how many children are estimated to be autistic.”

So it’s let’s not ever look or bother because the made-up numbers of a blogger say it wouldn’t find anything?

“The only way to get around the problems inherent in designing a study …would be to expand the study to multiple nations. Of course, doing such a study would be even more enormously expensive, take several years, and, because funding for autism research is pretty much a zero sum game, would divert huge amounts of money from more promising research to chasing down a highly implausible hypothesis that has virtually no credible empirical support behind it, either from basic science, epidemiology, or other evidence, certainly nowhere near enough evidence to justify such a huge expenditure and effort.”

Yep. He’s lying.
DON’T LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

Virtually no?

Nowhere near enough – in his opinion.

I hope these people go to prison for fraud, when this study is eventually conducted. Obstruction.

“Certainly the government does, hence its reluctance to spend all sorts of money chasing a highly improbable hypothesis….

Not Pharma Super PACs?

In reality, the “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” gambit is just that–a gambit. The leaders of the anti-vaccine movement probably know that doing a study with sufficient power and numbers to exclude even a modest risk of autism due to the current vaccine schedule is so expensive and impractical that it would probably never be done and that smaller studies that are feasible will have too little power to reassure those who believe that vaccines cause autism that vaccines are in fact safe. Why do it then?

So, conspiracy now?
The researchers won’t do their job and it ‘won’t’ be done, instead of can’t?

Here’s the kitchen sink:

In fact, I rather suspect that the smarter among the anti-vaccinationists know all the problems”

That’s an insane conspiracy. Everyone deserves to know the results. Public interest.

“On the other hand, antivaccinationists should be very careful what they ask for. They may just make enough of a pain of themselves to get it.”

….Good?

Worse, if the government ever did spend the money on such an enormous study and it was resoundingly negative, it’s easy to predict that it would make no difference.”

You don’t discuss what would happen if they’re right.
This article of yours was an old whore, windbagging about how impractical, expensive and unethical it is to hold you accountable. The projected paranoia is exquisite, it would be their worst nightmare – but they suggested it?

“As they have done before for other large studies, anti-vaccinationists would discount the results and cry bias.”

Would you accept it if you’re wrong?
If it’s a good study, solid statistically, that wouldn’t be an argument. And you couldn’t find fault with it either, if YOU didn’t like the result.

Kinda why it’s done? Objectivity?

not the dubious study

custom designed

to have the maximal chance of a false positive result,

which is

of course

what the anti-vaccine movement really wants.”

Conspiracy theorist. By all means, do the most accurate study, I’d love to write about it.

He’s literally attacking a study he says is impossible. Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

Link: High IQ genes vs. Low IQ genes

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/high-iq-genes-versus-low-iq-genes.html

Before the Industrial Revolution, individuals with a higher mutational load, which means a higher load of low-IQ genes (and therefore lower intelligence) had lower-than-average reproductive success due to very high (indeed, probably near total) childhood mortality rates. But since the child mortality rates fell from more than half to about one percent in most of Europe, almost all babies that are born have survived to adulthood, and most of them have reproduced. Therefore, we must assume that there have by now been several generations – in England at least eight generations – of mutation accumulation. And we must also assume that this has had a significant effect in reducing intelligence.

ah yes toast drinking damon ian nodding
RT alone. In RT alone.