A comparison between eight individual samples demonstrated that the Asian male one has an extremely large number of ACE2-expressing cells in the lung. This study provides a biological background for the epidemic investigation of the 2019-nCov infection disease, and could be informative for future anti-ACE2 therapeutic strategy development.
We may dub it The Elliot gene.
…..We also noticed that the only Asian donor (male) has a much higher ACE2-expressing cell ratio than white and African American donors (2.50% vs. 0.47% of all cells). This might explain the observation that the new Coronavirus pandemic and previous SARS-Cov pandemic are concentrated in the Asian area….
Almost like the Chinese wanted to wipe out most of their own race IF there were a war.
“Yet many languages also have words that English speakers might think of as “basic” emotions — love, hate, anger, fear, sadness, happiness. Early theories, influenced by Charles Darwin and pegged to shared biological structures in humans, suggest there are certain universal emotions that serve as the source material for all others, as primary colors might be blended to create many new shades.
Universalism is bullshit. All shades. Not All ___ is a derailment, attempt to enable, dismiss or deflect or simple result of a category error.
But just as later work has suggested that different cultures do not always categorize color in the same ways,
Different rods/cones plus evolution.
there’s a growing understanding that even those supposedly “primary” emotions may hold their own meanings and nuances in different cultures that aren’t directly translatable.“
Apply Occam to this. People are not cogs, Rousseau!
Language is also genetic. Really. This is known.
Preview of what they’ll “discover” next, trying to get ahead of the net?
Humanity, as we WEIRD individualists think of it, is also non-uniform throughout the species. Diversity aka variation exists, a scale of 0-100, if you will. Basically? Some races are crueler than others, simply put. Others less sadistic, even to their own people, animals, children, elderly etc. Science is catching up. We are not, as we’ll be told, dehumanising THEM, they dehumanise themselves, they hurt one another, what better treatment can WE expect?
Civilization is a combination of simple factors and conditions inc. IQ (organism and national), honesty (low cultural corruption*), genetic individualism, K-select breeding and rearing and finally, low sadism (antisociality in the population, little pathology, especially sexual sadism). When “high trust” is required historically (the current PC code for this) the West succeeds because of its low racial sadism (and resultant bias towards justice) and tendency to punish/cull predators (civil unrest) instead of reward with money, rape victims, goats, whatever. High culture is produced by ALL these factors, you can’t make exceptions for your own hedonism.
It looks like collectivism but it isn’t – it doesn’t hide personal responsibility or agency behind Muh Group Card (like the men who marry in China and are allowed to cheat, two-faced “duty”) or the need for virtue as The Other Guy’s Problem. It isn’t cruel or cowardly in secret, it’s openly FAIR.Cruelty is the key sign of an inferior mind.
The SJWs don’t name me for that reason. The science is coming out.
m-m-m-muh appeal to authority?
*So neither China nor Russia will run jack shit. They cannot innovate in a vacuum. The kitten-crushers of Japan and China make shitty parents and military generals. Honour culture isn’t a parade, it’s bravery. It’s sacrifice.
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.
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.
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:
“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”
“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.”
“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
Mixed, Chinese and any other group, 44%;
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).”
“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.
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
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%.
ALL SGA average: 8.2%.
Pre-term neonatal deaths
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
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
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.
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.
“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.”
“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.”
“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?
“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?
“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.”
“…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.”
“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?
“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:
“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.
“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.
“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.”
“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.
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.
“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.”
As in, normal group preference, genophilia. No mutations.
Reminds me of the study that found distant cousins most fecund.
Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.
In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.
Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.
The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.
And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.
The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.
By choice or rape?
But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.
“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived they intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.
“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”
Inbreeding is great if you have low genetic load in the participants, it preserves the health, looks and intellect of the bloodline. The breeding of good breeding was this deliberate sexual selection for fitness. It’s only a problem when you introduce mutations. They compound.
Outbreeding is far more likely to produce diseased or infertile offspring, much like a liger or a mongrel, the depression of mutations in genetic load can occur in a single generation.
Over the last 30 years, social psychologists have documented an impressive array of psychocultural differences. For example, in East Asian cultures the self tends to be defined in relationship to the group, or collective, whereas in Western cultures (e.g. Europe and the nations of the former British Commonwealth) there is a greater proclivity for the self to be viewed as unique, stable and independent of the social group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A critical question raised by such findings is how do such cultural differences arise? Why do some groups tend towards collectivism, while others tend towards individualism?
Answering this complex question will require integrating many levels of analysis including ecological, sociological, demographic, economic, psychological and biological. A helpful means of integrating these diverse influences is to adopt a cultural neuroscience perspective (Chiao and Ambady, 2007), because the brain is the central hub where each of these influences converge. Accordingly, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms and, conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes.
The second part is like saying horses evolved to run in front of carts.
People build on their homeland. Look at architecture. Anglo is quite specific, Germanic, France/Italian/Romantic again, specific. That’s just WEST Europe.
I know some nerd in the future will write their dissertation on how you could predict multiculturalism’s failure by America’s inability to agree on one architectural design aesthetic and I hope I’m here to read it.
Although the study of psychological genetics is in its infancy and much is still to be learned, in this article, we present data suggesting that variation in several genes known to affect brain function appear to influence the degree to which one is emotionally responsive to the social environment. We then extend this social sensitivity hypothesis to the cultural realm and present evidence indicating that it may be of relevance to the cultural construct of individualism–collectivism. Although the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (Lewontin, 1972), a measurable proportion of human genetic variation does exist between populations of different ancestral origins. Therefore, we examine below the relationship between population differences in cultural orientation and the relative frequency of several genetic variants thought to affect sensitivity to the social environment. In addition, we also explore potential psychological processes that may explain the effect.
They’ll catch up.
Cultural Neuroscience chapter
see page 3 or 239
“The neuroscience of culture versus race”
Cultural neuroscience: parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis (2007)
Stop straining, sub-species (better known as race) is as real as species and genus.
Arguing for Darwin in biology is common sense, like men and women EXIST (sexual dimorphism).
Even the Creationists don’t question that.
So again, for the cheap seats:
no magic dirt, no magic equal economic cogs and no, cuckservatives, you can’t talk Asians into “acting white” and voting for small gov. They don’t even view themselves as an individual person. Stop projecting libertarian 115IQ white guy reasoning onto the entire planet. You are wrong.
And whatever their upbringing, foreigners NEVER share exactly the same culture.
Even a host culture of a hundred plus years, like blacks had in America to “integrate”.
Never gonna happen.
They’re not like a petri blank.
Fuck, look at Chinatown. In American cities or London, it’s more alike than the host nations.
Over a hundred years. What’s your excuse?
[White culture is also the easiest and nicest to integrate into, so WTF.]