Ancestry tests are impossible

And this, from an Out of Africa theorist.

https://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/personal-dna-tests-in-the-spotlight

Especially more than a thousand years ago, come on. What percentage of your DNA is theirs?

One generation ago is 50%….

It should be illegal under privacy laws. You have no right to sell (and sell you do) your relative’s DNA to a company.

Professor Hayes, an expert in ancient ancestry, human origins in Africa and the impact of ancient DNA variation on modern human disease, shared her perspectives on the limitations of different types of testing and the contribution of genetic research to the accuracy of ancestry tests.

Professor Hayes says, “The clear value of these online tests is that they are creating public awareness and debate into the use of genomics as we enter an era of precision medicine, where one’s individual DNA profile will be used to inform one’s medical care.

None of those words are good.

However, the information learned from these tests is only as accurate or informative as the data available.”

learned by?

translation: They aren’t accurate.

Insurance companies want them.

So do biotech. They’re allowed to patent nature (reverse this).

This is the genetic gold rush.

There’s gold in them thar veins!

You’re all Henrietta Lacks.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/

So they can come up with a drug worth billions from your DNA and you paid them to do it.

While selling out your relatives for a bullshit questionnaire “result” page that might as well have come from Buzzfeed.

The police can access their database to place you at a crime scene (or plant your DNA at one) and juries are dumb enough to think being somewhere, alive, is the mark of a criminal. (CSI effect)

[only in rape cases, so few rapists nowadays deny any sexual acts took place, as they used to)

You’re only as smart as your dumbest, vainest relation.

They couldn’t get you to sign up to clinical trials willing, plus all the ones applying your code to would add up, so they tricked you into paying them to use you like a guinea pig.

“The majority of these tests to date interrogate no more than 0.02% of our DNA code, which includes over 6 billion ‘letters’. While this is certainly sufficient to determine direct family relatedness,

Who is your daddy?

making further assumptions on complex ancestral structure and more importantly complex diseases, raises serious concerns.”

She adds, “In a research setting our studies require a lengthy process of ethics approval, participant consent, individual de-identification, freedom for study withdraw and highest level of data security, for the very reasons and concerns raised by participants during the SBS insight DNA Surprises.”

Monoculture goals

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/06/04/national/tackling-signs-japan-youre-not-welcome/#.Ws18s4jwbIU

There’s freedom of association in action.


I want churches to start banning atheists again.
Picture r/atheism.
“We didn’t want to go there anyway but I have rights!”
No, you don’t. You’d think libertarians would know this.

How long can they deny HBD?

Waiting to be a father is irresponsible, imagine my shock.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/31/babies-born-to-older-fathers-tend-to-have-more-medical-issues

“The records showed that children born to men aged 45 and over had a 14% greater risk of premature birth, low birth weight and being admitted to neonatal intensive care compared with babies born to younger fathers.”

Geriatric fathers, yes.
If you’re past middle-age (36-7 in men) and old enough to be a grandfather.

Infants born to men aged 45 and over also scored lower on the Apgar newborn health test, and were 18% more likely to have seizures compared with infants born to fathers aged 25 to 34 years, according to the study in the British Medical Journal.

Why not state all the findings, including compared with <25?

Boomer readership, that’s why. 60 is the new 40 though, sure.

For women, the risk of gestational diabetes was greater when they had children with older men.”

Paternal age as a medical risk factor is long known, I’ve posted on it.

Their study.

http://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4372

“This is something else to take into consideration,” he said. “There are potential risks with waiting. Men should not think that they have an unlimited runway.”

Why isn’t male fertility and issues like impotence mentioned in biology class? Men deserve to know, it’s important life planning. Modern men don’t realise their fertility is dropping steeply until they eventually go to conceive or get a random sperm count for other reasons.

I’d go so far as to call it a public health issue.

They are not fully informed, the information is withheld from them. Where’s the full consent for that wait, if they don’t understand what it might entail?

Obviously the man commenting on the study tries to downplay it but other studies I’ve posted didn’t find mild differences, in some cases extreme (such as psychiatric risk) and that’s without looking at whether the child is mixed-race, that includes the risk even further. Good luck getting that published.

“increases in health risks might have across populations as paternal age continues to rise.”

If it’s a risk across a population, it is also a risk for the individuals within it, showing up his earlier weasel words about ‘individuals’ to be a lie. You don’t have medical complications as a population, it’s personal.

“When I talk to couples about health risks, I use the lottery as an analogy,”

You use a con about people who can’t do maths to… lie to people who can’t do maths.

“Even if your risk for something goes up 10-20%, the absolute risk for an individual

doesn’t change

At all?

that much.”

Hear that gentlemen?


Who gives a shit about your individual risk going up by 20%? Not this guy! He’d rather not offend you but let you slowly become infertile because, by the time you figure it out, you’ll be powerless to do anything about it. White men need to have fewer children, as other Guardian articles have informed us.

You aren’t entitled to oppressive white male fertility.

The researchers calculating risk across the field (here a part of gerontology) know more maths than the doctors downplaying it.

“Eisenberg and his colleagues suggest changes in the DNA of older men’s sperm might explain their findings.”

Berg-berg-berg-berg et al.

“The concern is backed up by previous work, including a Harvard study last year that found births through IVF fell as the fathers’ age increased.”

Duh.

IVF isn’t magic.

“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,” she writes, adding that all are linked to health problems in newborns.”

Sub-fertility, which many clueless men have and they don’t care to warn you about.

It’s almost like men evolved to have children while they were healthier.

From the BMJ article itself:

“Though the effects of advanced maternal age on perinatal outcomes have been extensively studied,

can’t blame women, credits on that excuse are maxed out

research on the impact of older fathers on the health of offspring has been limited mostly to the risk of congenital disease.345678

we’re scared of offending old guys with money

The high number of male germ cell divisions in aging fathers has been proposed to increase the risk of autism, genetic abnormalities, psychiatric morbidity, and neoplasia in offspring, but recent studies have also suggested a potential paternal effect on perinatal morbidity.691011121314

I didn’t call my article Old fathers, sick babies for nothing.
Can’t get sicker than dead or disabled.

This passes down the germline so one bad breeding decision will affect all their offspring’s fitness too (I think the children will eventually sue for epigenetic damages, on poor lifestyle choices prior to conception as well).

I’ve love to see a study comparing older fathers with younger and recording sexual history (partners and diseases) because you know that has an effect. A medical effect. They’re too chickenshit to do it (and record the same in women but paternal factors into their sperm donation are more likely modified by those behavioural factors, his baby-making factory is the testes area so its prior health and the delivery vehicle’s are especially important).

One common explanation arises from the epigenetic changes that occur within spermatocytes; specifically modifications to histone and DNA methylation in spermatozoa of older men. These alterations occur in regions of the genome that are responsible for several diseases in offspring.15 Disruption of histone methylation in developing male germ cells might be a precursor to aberrant embryonic and placental development, with studies suggesting that paternal imprinting of aging could affect both fetal growth and maternal health during pregnancy.”

Degenerate DNA gets so offended when people stop filtering about it.

No prizes why they didn’t quote this part.

I wonder if their boys (because paternal factors would be stronger to another male) are more or less effeminate than the average? Again, they don’t dare do that study.

Paternal imprinting, that’s a nice word for degeneration on a genetic level.

At least they’re acknowledging men age, I suppose.

Looking at non-Guardian approved science:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-documents-paternal-transmission-epigenetic-memory.html

“Studies of human populations and animal models suggest that a father’s experiences such as diet or environmental stress can influence the health and development of his descendants. How these effects are transmitted across generations, however, remains mysterious.”

I’m guessing the sperm.

….

Just a random, wild guess.

“Epigenetic changes do not alter the DNA sequences of genes, but instead involve chemical modifications to either the DNA itself or the histone proteins with which DNA is packaged in the chromosomes. These modifications influence gene expression, turning genes on or off in different cells and at different stages of development. The idea that epigenetic modifications can cause changes in gene expression that are transmitted from one generation to the next, known as “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,” is now the focus of intense scientific investigation.

For many years, it was thought that sperm do not retain any histone packaging and therefore could not transmit histone-based epigenetic information to offspring. Recent studies, however, have shown that about 10 percent of histone packaging is retained in both human and mouse sperm.”

So …more lying to men.
Get obese, it’s fine! Drink like a fish! Your kids will be fine!

Our ancestors never knew that vice… had a price.
https://biblehub.com/numbers/14-18.htm

They didn’t have iPhones, we’re so much wiser than them.

“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.‘”

What does that even mean? Nature can’t see what you’re doing.

Trust the “experts” who profiteer from fertility treatments and hate white men!

“”Furthermore, where the chromosomes retain histone packaging of DNA is in developmentally important regions, so those findings raised awareness of the possibility that sperm may transmit important epigenetic information to embryos,” Strome said.”

Wait, could rednecks be even smarter if they drank less?

Was Prohibition, pro-white?

“These findings show that the DNA packaging in sperm is important, because offspring that did not inherit normal sperm epigenetic marks were sterile, and it is sufficient for normal germline development,” Strome said.”

Money shot?

Sinner father, no grandchildren?

That is a divinely calculated revenge, all their paternal investment wasted.

Detour:

https://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/childlessness-and-bible-2-defective.html

“The presumption of female defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the husband used the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one”

LOL

“While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity,”

louder for cucks at the back

“childlessness was one of the most common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage”

But God is punishing them, going around that in favour of dysgenic reproduction is a sin.

Women could divorce infertile or impotent men under the Catholic church, it was so important.

“The goal is to analyze how the chromatin packaging changes in the parent,” she said. “Whatever gets passed on to the offspring has to go through the germ cells. We want to know which cells experience the environmental factors, how they transmit that information to the germ cells, what changes in the germ cells, and how that impacts the offspring.”

I doubt it’s for the greater good.

Could addiction be genetic?

Lawyers are celebrating just thinking of it.

By demonstrating the importance of epigenetic information carried by sperm, the current study establishes that if the environment experienced by the father changes the epigenetics of sperm chromosomes, it could affect the offspring.”

Could?

A few others, while I’m here.

Your genes affect your nose shape.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11616

Ya gotta have chutzpah to believe the science.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/scientists-discover-dozens-of-new-genes-for-hair-colour

“The colour of a person’s hair is one of the most heritable features of their appearance, with studies on twins suggesting that genetics explains up to 97% of hair colour.”

Race explains 100%. Subrace especially.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0100-5

They’re right that hair colour isn’t a matter of sexual preference …but race is.

““Pigments are far more than just cosmetic – they are important for the immune system and play a role in many diseases,” said Spector. “Understanding the genetics could lead to new therapies.”

They tried that with African heart medication, it was taken off the label.

They’d rather let black men keel over and die than admit they’re genetically different.

K-shift in mice:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/13/scientists-discover-brains-neural-switch-for-becoming-an-alpha-male

“Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.”

So you see, they can’t let men grow up. There’d be no politically useful regression then.
Buy stock in pajamas.
They can knock out that part of the brain too. They don’t mention this. This makes me suspicious.

“The findings, they suggest, could have applications in understanding a variety of psychiatric conditions where people exhibit overly dominant behaviours, or lack motivation to compete socially.”

Psychopathy and depression (or r-selection, as a trait).
Psychopaths are immune to depression. What makes others sad, makes them mad.
The study itself has nothing to do with “alpha” as Americans consider it, an alpha is never single in biology but part of a breeding pair.

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/08/23/no-more-alpha-male/

The study is really about psychopathy in the extreme form (genetic engineering, useful for the military) and social dominance in prosocial, milder forms (K) which cannot be undone (even in GE mice) as a natural maturation process. Its absence of activation (say, from the amygala circuits) could explain effete males. Again, they gloss over that.

I noticed.

Genes influence subject choice.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/16/a-level-subject-choice-is-strongly-influenced-by-genes-scientists-say

Not IQ?
Isn’t that a huge confound that should be studied?
And why force children to study languages then? Isn’t that oppression when they could study something else?

“Birney warns that the findings do not imply that it is possible to predict a student’s subject choice, or achievement, from their genome.”

trans. Don’t look in the race box, please, don’t look in the race box. I don’t want to get the sack.

“As schooling and other factors vary greatly from person to person it is unlikely that genetics is the dominant factor in A-level choice.”

The likelihood was calculated.

“The scientists found that this was indeed the case, with 50-80% of subject choice down to genetic influences.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/genes-influence-academic-ability-across-all-subjects-latest-study-shows

Academic ability …. not IQ?

How is GPA not a reliable proxy for IQ, on that point?

GPA is basically just the PC term for IQ. Mathematically.

Guess the race

Just to prove we have perceptual deficits when it comes to differentiating the outgroup.

AKA No, you can’t “just tell”. Unless you’re in that group.

I kept this down to Asian or African and you’ll still get at least a handful wrong. Everyone would. Getting it correct would be a fluke.

african san

asian bangladeshi girl

Answers in the file name.

“They all look the same to me” is just realistic.

Starting on non-white people who can’t tell the difference between various Europeans is not helpful, especially when those Europeans do their best to act and dress like a homogeneous blob. I can’t tell who was part of the Norman invasion and who’s part Viking and that’s the ingroup.

So Jews really aren’t white?

They’re pissed off at genetics. Are they going to buy me a straightener?

I think they’re confusing Europeans with Asians, which is the worst part.

Asians don’t have curly hair. But they say white people.

Okay, ban hair styling treatments as a kinda cosmetic racism? Nah, they wouldn’t. They don’t have the ladyballs.

Shape and hair growth are genetic. And RACIAL, yes.

You’re appropriating long hair with your weaves?

And what’s with the red dye? That’s racist against the Irish.

Contact lenses? What’s wrong with looking black and having dark brown eyes?
You seem to have internalized racism, bitches.

See, it’s worth pushing this point because cultural heritage triggers them.

Freedom of appearance is part of freedom of association.

Think how circumcision is “justified” for Christian Americans, aka it might make Jews feel left out, no freedom of choice!

And differences in appearance allow you to make informed choices about who to associate with. It’s critical information. Personally, I avoid forearm tattoos, there’s always some abuse background there.

First they ridiculed looking white, then acting white…

Believe me, I know. This is how they eventually boiled the frog until they could steal a MAGA hat because suddenly they can dictate your racial appearance.

It’s like biting into a fruit, to get at the seeds, they must start with the skin (appearance), then attack the flesh (personality, behaviours) and then finally they can outright attack the seed (whiteness).