PDA

View Full Version : Allergies-Why do Amish children suffer less from them?



Angela
09-08-16, 19:09
See:
http://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/amish-asthma-study/?platform=hootsuite

Trying to keep everything bacteria and dust free has its downside.

On the other hand, not maintaining hygiene around animals has cost humans dearly in the past.

Promenade
09-08-16, 20:58
Being exposed to bacteria at an early age is good, it helps build the immune system. I wouldn't be surprised if the explosion of allergies in modern times is directly correlated to over use of anti bacterials and obsession over hygiene with young infants. Children like the Amish who grow up on a farm will be more resistant to disease later in life, of course at the same time your child could potentially get any one of the hosts of awful diseases carried by farm animals.

LeBrok
10-08-16, 04:11
Ah, the free range kids have better immune system. Like in everything in life we should try to keep things in balance. Perhaps shower only with soap once a week when you really stink? ;)

Virtue
15-08-16, 12:41
I had actually read about this, found it interesting. An even more interesting case, was that Amish children get no (or almost no) incidence of Autism. Google "amish autism" and you will find some pretty interesting things on why Amish folk never get autism. I was never vaccinated before, and I actually thank my parents for that.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 08:55
Ah, the free range kids have better immune system. Like in everything in life we should try to keep things in balance. Perhaps shower only with soap once a week when you really stink? ;)

I went back to using the traditional Marseille soap bar, which is made of vegetable oils, instead of the shower gels that contain so many toxic and/or endocrine-disrupting chemicals. My interest in microbiology and in my own microbiome have also convinced me that it may not be a good idea to have showers every day or twice a day as I used to, but only once every three days (except if I do some physical exercice, or if it's very hot, but that only happens a few days per year in Belgium).

People tend to be surprised when I say that I have always only brushed my teeth once per day (before bed), as opposed to the standard twice per day, and never got a cavity or any other dental problem. My dentist told me that out of his thousands of patients he has only seen about five people with teeth as healthy as mine. And I never floss and never use mouthwash either. If you have good mouth bacteria it may not be a good idea to try to kill them all and let pathogenic ones replace them at the first opportunity. Excessive brushing may be as bad as taking antibiotics as it upset the natural balance of healthy bacteria. That being said, genetics may have something to do with it too, as one's HLA types will determine what kind of bacteria the immune system allows to stay in your mouth (or nose or gut).

Maciamo
16-08-16, 09:08
I had actually read about this, found it interesting. An even more interesting case, was that Amish children get no (or almost no) incidence of Autism. Google "amish autism" and you will find some pretty interesting things on why Amish folk never get autism. I was never vaccinated before, and I actually thank my parents for that.

That's ridiculous. Autism is 80% genetic. If the Amish never get autism it's not because of their lifestyle or lack of vaccination but rather because many high-risk alleles for autism may be absent from their very limited and inbred gene pool. In fact, a British study (Kiani et al. 2013 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22292906)) found that autism was more prevalent in rural areas than in cities!

Diurpaneus
16-08-16, 09:15
Mind your tone,mister.
I suppose that the intelligence doesn't always get
along with decency.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 09:17
Being exposed to bacteria at an early age is good, it helps build the immune system. I wouldn't be surprised if the explosion of allergies in modern times is directly correlated to over use of anti bacterials and obsession over hygiene with young infants. Children like the Amish who grow up on a farm will be more resistant to disease later in life, of course at the same time your child could potentially get any one of the hosts of awful diseases carried by farm animals.

Most viruses transmitted by animals are only passed when eating the raw or undercooked meat from these animals. That's why humans get avian flu from eating chicken and swine flu from pork, but we never get viruses from cats and dogs who live in much closer proximity. There has been cases of deadly bacteria between passed from animals to humans, as with the plague (yersinia pestis bacteria), but even in that case it usually evolves another vector (rate fleas in the case of the plague) that typically only develops in condition of very poor hygiene.

Virtue
16-08-16, 10:01
That's ridiculous. Autism is 80% genetic. If the Amish never get autism it's not because of their lifestyle or lack of vaccination but rather because many high-risk alleles for autism may be absent from their very limited and inbred gene pool. In fact, a British study (Kiani et al. 2013 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22292906)) found that autism was more prevalent in rural areas than in cities!What sources are you getting this from? Always check the people who do these studies. They could be biased.

Also, another question why is Cancer so rare in fully grown Amish people as well? Amish folks tend to lack cancer deaths. They usually die of exhaustion and heart related deaths at old age. Cancer and Autism did not come about until much recently. In the industrial Revolution, cancer was a very rare disease. But that century was the first time Cancer deaths began to skyrocket. Industrial = chemical. So likewise, do you see an analogy there?

I do not believe that both are genetic diseases, and my personal opinion is that both diseases are purely man-made, and from chemicals. There can be genes that can make people more predisposed to these disorders, but it isn't necessarily genetics that it is the problem, it is the chemicals that are entering their bodies..

Virtue
16-08-16, 10:06
That's ridiculous. Autism is 80% genetic. If the Amish never get autism it's not because of their lifestyle or lack of vaccination but rather because many high-risk alleles for autism may be absent from their very limited and inbred gene pool. In fact, a British study (Kiani et al. 2013 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22292906)) found that autism was more prevalent in rural areas than in cities!Take a look at this article, which states the opposite... and that people who are more or less inbred (homogeneity) than the public, are less likely to suffer from genetic diseases as contrary to people who have more ancestors. Polish, Basque, Sardinians and Japanese people almost never get stuff like cancer or Autism, and they are very inbred and can even live to over 100.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-04-04/scientists-find-surprisingly-good-health-levels-ethnically-homogeneous

Virtue
16-08-16, 10:14
That's ridiculous. Autism is 80% genetic. If the Amish never get autism it's not because of their lifestyle or lack of vaccination but rather because many high-risk alleles for autism may be absent from their very limited and inbred gene pool. In fact, a British study (Kiani et al. 2013 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22292906)) found that autism was more prevalent in rural areas than in cities!Why Don't The Amish Get Cancer?-

http://simplecapacity.com/2016/04/why-dont-the-amish-get-cancer/


A recent study published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779840) has revealed that Amish people have virtually no cancer within their population, and are considered the most healthy people in America.
^^

Another study

https://internalmedicine.osu.edu/nephrology/article.cfm?ID=5307



Why don't Amish children get Autism?

http://yournewswire.com/why-dont-amish-children-get-autism/



All from a completely different sources, by the way.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 10:21
What sources are you getting this from? Always check the people who do these studies. They could be biased.

Also, another question why is Cancer so rare in fully grown Amish people as well? Amish folks tend to lack cancer deaths. They usually die of exhaustion and heart related deaths at old age. Cancer and Autism did not come about until much recently. In the industrial Revolution, cancer was a very rare disease. But that century was the first time Cancer deaths began to skyrocket. Industrial = chemical. So likewise, do you see an analogy there?

I do not believe that both are genetic diseases, and my personal opinion is that both diseases are purely man-made, and from chemicals. There can be genes that can make people more predisposed to these disorders, but it isn't necessarily genetics that it is the problem, it is the chemicals that are entering their bodies..

Cancer has nothing to do with autism. I never said that the Amish didn't have lower cancer rates (or allergy rates for that matter). I actually agree that living away from chemicals and from the stress of modern life decreases the chances of developing cancer. But once again genetics play an important part too, at least for some types of cancer. Then we should also keep in mind that one reason the incidence of cancer may be so low among the Amish might be under-reporting as they shun modern technologies, including PET scanners that would help them identify cancer in the first place. So some of them may die from cancer without knowing it, as people regularly did in past centuries.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 10:50
Take a look at this article, which states the opposite... and that people who are more or less inbred (homogeneity) than the public, are less likely to suffer from genetic diseases as contrary to people who have more ancestors. Polish, Basque, Sardinians and Japanese people almost never get stuff like cancer or Autism, and they are very inbred and can even live to over 100.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-04-04/scientists-find-surprisingly-good-health-levels-ethnically-homogeneous

Another unsubstantiated claim. The Japanese may have high life expectancy, but they have one of the world's highest rates of gastric cancer (http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/stomach-cancer-statistics) despite their healthy cuisine. It's probably genetic since Mongolia, Korea and China are the other countries with extremely high rates. The fact that you could suggest that the Japanese or the Poles are inbred in any way means that you do not have a clue what inbreeding is. It doesn't mean that people don't intermarry much with foreigners or outsiders! It means that people tend to frequently marry first or second cousins. It's not something Japanese people do more than Westerners, and probably less since Japan has such a high population density and urbanisation, which increases the chances of meeting and marrying completely unrelated people.

If you didn't mean that Japanese people were inbred, but ethnically homogeneous, this is also an illusion based on the linguistic and cultural homogeneity. Japan has a population close to 130 million inhabitants, almost exactly the same as the whole of Africa around 1900! Even in 1900, Japan had 45 million inhabitants, so about three times less than Africa, simply because Japan, like China, has had a huge population for many centuries. The higher the historical population, the more mutations and the less homogeneity. But even if you look at prehistoric ancestry, the Japanese are actually a blend of two completely unrelated populations (http://www.wa-pedia.com/history/origins_japanese_people.shtml): the Sino-Korean derived Yayoi farmers (Y-haplogroups N and O), who started colonising the archipelago 2500 years ago, and the aboriginal Jomon hunter-gatherers (Y-haplogroups C and D).

Nowadays Southwest Japanese, like in Kyushu, are about 2/3 Yayoi and 1/3 Jomon, while Northeast Japanese have the opposite proportion, meaning that in terms of ancient admixtures northern and southern Japanese are more different than the French are from the Germans. It may be harder to notice these differences physically. But looks aren't a good indicator of genetic differences. A Siberian may be confused with a Chinese or even a Vietnamese, but that doesn't mean that they are closely related genetically. Likewise if you travel around the UK and look at the locals (excluding recent immigrants) you will see people with extremely different looks, a whole range of different pigmentations, with red, light blond, dark blond, reddish blond, light and dark brown and black hair, straight, wavy and curly hair, people who are very short and others who are very tall, some who have very big noses and other very small ones, round heads and long heads... Yet they are all fairly close genetically, and in fact closer with each other than with anybody from say Denmark or France, even though some British may look very Danish and others very French. That being said, I can usually tell a Japanese from Kyushu apart from someone from Tohoku, because I have lived in Japan and analysed their phenotypes.

Virtue
16-08-16, 11:13
Another unsubstantiated claim. The Japanese may have high life expectancy, but they have one of the world's highest rates of gastric cancer (http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/stomach-cancer-statistics) despite their healthy cuisine. It's probably genetic since Mongolia, Korea and China are the other countries with extremely high rates. The fact that you could suggest that the Japanese or the Poles are inbred in any way means that you do not have a clue what inbreeding is. It doesn't mean that people don't intermarry much with foreigners or outsiders! It means that people tend to frequently marry first or second cousins. It's not something Japanese people do more than Westerners, and probably less since Japan has such a high population density and urbanisation, which increases the chances of meeting and marrying completely unrelated people.

If you didn't mean that Japanese people were inbred, but ethnically homogeneous, this is also an illusion based on the linguistic and cultural homogeneity. Japan has a population close to 130 million inhabitants, almost exactly the same as the whole of Africa around 1900! Even in 1900, Japan had 45 million inhabitants, so about three times less than Africa, simply because Japan, like China, has had a huge population for many centuries. The higher the historical population, the more mutations and the less homogeneity. But even if you look at prehistoric ancestry, the Japanese are actually a blend of two completely unrelated populations (http://www.wa-pedia.com/history/origins_japanese_people.shtml): the Sino-Korean derived Yayoi farmers (Y-haplogroups N and O), who started colonising the archipelago 2500 years ago, and the aboriginal Jomon hunter-gatherers (Y-haplogroups C and D).

Nowadays Southwest Japanese, like in Kyushu, are about 2/3 Yayoi and 1/3 Jomon, while Northeast Japanese have the opposite proportion, meaning that in terms of ancient admixtures northern and southern Japanese are more different than the French are from the Germans. It may be harder to notice these differences physically. But looks aren't a good indicator of genetic differences. A Siberian may be confused with a Chinese or even a Vietnamese, but that doesn't mean that they are closely related genetically. Likewise if you travel around the UK and look at the locals (excluding recent immigrants) you will see people with extremely different looks, a whole range of different pigmentations, with red, light blond, dark blond, reddish blond, light and dark brown and black hair, straight, wavy and curly hair, people who are very short and others who are very tall, some who have very big noses and other very small ones, round heads and long heads... Yet they are all fairly close genetically, and in fact closer with each other than with anybody from say Denmark or France, even though some British may look very Danish and others very French. That being said, I can usually tell a Japanese from Kyushu apart from someone from Tohoku, because I have lived in Japan and analysed their phenotypes.So you are saying the Polish are not homogeneous? I can go with that, because of the presence of N1c as well as lower incidents of C and Q.

But explaining homogeneity, just because they have one ancestor who wasn't of R1a or I1 or I2 stock does not mean much. Especially if they are indeed inbred. Homogeneity is like a genetical paradox. The Poles carrying N1c but have mostly R1a, R1b or I ancestors will certainly lose the features of the ancestor who carried N1c and will look similar to even those who do not have the N1c ancestor. But what they do have, are the same or similar ancestors and amount of ancestors. This is what is called a "phenotype". (stereotypical look)

Say, for example, a Pole has haplogroup Q1a. (mongoloid?) But, all of the rest of his ancestors are Caucasoid/European. And he shares the same Polish ancestors, but just happens to have that one non-Polish or Mongol ancestor (or group of Mongol ancestors long ago) then, he will most definitely lose his Mongol features over time and appear as an average (unmixed) Polish or West Slav.

Virtue
16-08-16, 11:16
Cancer has nothing to do with autism. I never said that the Amish didn't have lower cancer rates (or allergy rates for that matter). I actually agree that living away from chemicals and from the stress of modern life decreases the chances of developing cancer. But once again genetics play an important part too, at least for some types of cancer. Then we should also keep in mind that one reason the incidence of cancer may be so low among the Amish might be under-reporting as they shun modern technologies, including PET scanners that would help them identify cancer in the first place. So some of them may die from cancer without knowing it, as people regularly did in past centuries.I am sorry, I did not mean to say they had anything to do with each other. The point was that they are definitely proven to be man-made, not genetic. And if Japanese and other Mongoloids get a certain form of cancer, that only means (biologically) that they are very critically at risk of developing that cancer. While other races may not be. Genetics only plays a small part.

The point I was trying to make, is that the Amish people have a very low incidence or no incidence of Autism or Cancer, and this is because they live life simpler, and without most technological advancements seen in the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, Autism and Cancer were very rare. look it up, and think about it. In the 1950s Autism was rare but has never been more prevalent than today. Why is that? The explanation is that there are lots of things people are putting in medicine, food, even things like children's shots. And as I stated before, Cancer was rare in Europe and the Western world until the 18th and 19th century when the Industrial Revolution began. This is why I personally believe both diseases have a man-made origin. Genetics has little to do with it.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 13:34
I am sorry, I did not mean to say they had anything to do with each other. The point was that they are definitely proven to be man-made, not genetic. And if Japanese and other Mongoloids get a certain form of cancer, that only means (biologically) that they are very critically at risk of developing that cancer. While other races may not be. Genetics only plays a small part.

The point I was trying to make, is that the Amish people have a very low incidence or no incidence of Autism or Cancer, and this is because they live life simpler, and without most technological advancements seen in the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, Autism and Cancer were very rare. look it up, and think about it. In the 1950s Autism was rare but has never been more prevalent than today. Why is that? The explanation is that there are lots of things people are putting in medicine, food, even things like children's shots. And as I stated before, Cancer was rare in Europe and the Western world until the 18th and 19th century when the Industrial Revolution began. This is why I personally believe both diseases have a man-made origin. Genetics has little to do with it.

Autism and cancer have always existed. Even other animals get cancer. It's not a human thing and it didn't suddenly appear because of industrialisation. The only reason a lot of people believe that cancer or autism or other conditions didn't exist or weren't common in past centuries is because we didn't know about them or had no way of diagnosing them yet. Many forms of cancers run in families. Women with BRCA mutations have a high chance of developing breast cancer and changes in the environment and lifestyle are rarely enough to prevent it from happening. That's part of the inevitability of genetics. Likewise autism has been shown to be 80 to 90% hereditary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism), so about the same or even slightly more than intelligence and height.

If autism wasn't common in the past, how comes that so many famous historical people (http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.be/2006/09/referenced-list-of-famous-or-important.html) were on the spectrum? (e.g. Michelangelo, Newton, Mozart, Jefferson, Darwin, Tesla, Einstein) Statistically it seems like a much higher proportion than in the modern population.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 13:35
So you are saying the Polish are not homogeneous? I can go with that, because of the presence of N1c as well as lower incidents of C and Q.

But explaining homogeneity, just because they have one ancestor who wasn't of R1a or I1 or I2 stock does not mean much. Especially if they are indeed inbred. Homogeneity is like a genetical paradox. The Poles carrying N1c but have mostly R1a, R1b or I ancestors will certainly lose the features of the ancestor who carried N1c and will look similar to even those who do not have the N1c ancestor. But what they do have, are the same or similar ancestors and amount of ancestors. This is what is called a "phenotype". (stereotypical look)

Say, for example, a Pole has haplogroup Q1a. (mongoloid?) But, all of the rest of his ancestors are Caucasoid/European. And he shares the same Polish ancestors, but just happens to have that one non-Polish or Mongol ancestor (or group of Mongol ancestors long ago) then, he will most definitely lose his Mongol features over time and appear as an average (unmixed) Polish or West Slav.

If you still can't understand the difference between homogeneous and inbred, there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you.

Virtue
16-08-16, 14:01
Autism and cancer have always existed. Even other animals get cancer. It's not a human thing and it didn't suddenly appear because of industrialisation. The only reason a lot of people believe that cancer or autism or other conditions didn't exist or weren't common in past centuries is because we didn't know about them or had no way of diagnosing them yet. Many forms of cancers run in families. Women with BRCA mutations have a high chance of developing breast cancer and changes in the environment and lifestyle are rarely enough to prevent it from happening. That's part of the inevitability of genetics. Likewise autism has been shown to be 80 to 90% hereditary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism), so about the same or even slightly more than intelligence and height.

If autism wasn't common in the past, how comes that so many famous historical people (http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.be/2006/09/referenced-list-of-famous-or-important.html) were on the spectrum? (e.g. Michelangelo, Newton, Mozart, Jefferson, Darwin, Tesla, Einstein) Statistically it seems like a much higher proportion than in the modern population.Can I ask you a question - do you have a form of Autism?

While I understand that these people could be autistic - there really is no way to know this for sure. They are gone now, and we can only speculate based on their behavior written in biographies. If they took an Autistic test themselves, would that be enough? Autism isn't genetic, and if it were, wouldn't Autism couples keep giving birth to autistic couples? From my knowledge this has never happened before, and this is the explanation that discredits that Autism is purely genetic.

There is much more substantial proof that it is man-made (more than genetic) and contracted in early infancy. (Probably because babies' brains and bodies just cannot clean up these toxins that accumulates at the time of their development.)

"Likewise autism has been shown to be 80 to 90% hereditary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism), so about the same or even slightly more than intelligence and height."

This is ludicrous to me and makes no sense. Prior to 1950s and before, there was almost no finding of Autism whatsoever. Autism was discovered in 1938 and then made official diagnoses by 1943.

http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-hist.html

"Leo Kanner published his first paper identifying autistic children in 1943, asserting he had noticed such children since 1938 (see reference to Kanner, "Autistic Disturbance of Affective Contact", see Selected Articles (http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-bibl.html#biblsax) section below). Before Kanner noticed and recorded a pattern of symptoms, such children would be classified as emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded. Kanner observed that these children often demonstrated capabilities that showed that they were not merely slow learners, yet they didn't fit the patterns of emotionally disturbed children. Thus he invented a new category, which he called Early Infantile Autism, which has since sometimes been called Kanner's Syndrome. Hans Asperger (see section Well Known Researchers and Practicioners (http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-rese.html) and reference to Asperger, "Autistic Psychopathy in Childhood" in Selected Articles (http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-bibl.html#biblsax) section below) essentially made the same discoveries at the same time, independently of Kanner, but the patients he identified all had speech, so the term Asperger's Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome is often used to label autistic people who have speech."

Virtue
16-08-16, 14:12
If you still can't understand the difference between homogeneous and inbred, there is no reason for me to keep arguing with you.Inbreeding and homogeneity go hand-in-hand and are almost synonymous to each other. I did not say they were the same thing. Inbreeding is of course bad, but it is because it is using the same genetics, and too much shared genetics between partners will definitely cause bad genetics to become dominant, hence why it is more prevalent for birth defects if you try to create a child with a sibling, relative or first cousin.

There were Norwegian studies, prior to WW2, that showed people who were more homogeneous had Lesser chances of congenital diseases than the norm, and people who were mixed-race were most abundant with congenital defects. Norwegians also found that race-mixed people had a higher incidence of birth defects as well as infant mortality. Because the body and vagina of the mother is not equipped to give birth to the fetus of another race.

I read this in an old Danish book in a library from WW2, translating it into English. Basically, 7th generation inbreeding (or "homogeneity") was proven to be the healthiest of all races, even among the norm. It is like the "Goldilocks-zone" that is seen in Astronomy. (Earth is not too hot like Venus, but not too cool like Mars.)

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 14:30
the vagina of the mother is not equipped to give birth to the fetus of another race

I...

...

...what?

Virtue
16-08-16, 14:38
I...

...

...what?"Because the body and vagina of the mother is not equipped to give birth to the fetus of another race."

Updated to make it MORE clear for you...

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 14:46
I've simply never heard of the racial vaginal differences that would affect giving birth to a child of mixed origins. Increased risk of fetus rejection, etc., sure...

Virtue
16-08-16, 14:58
I've simply never heard of the racial vaginal differences that would affect giving birth to a child of mixed origins. Increased risk of fetus rejection, etc., sure...Well, maybe this photo will give you an understanding of what I am on about-

http://i.imgur.com/EJX309d.png

Hm, I guess an East Asian woman or a Caucasian woman would have a pretty tough time giving birth to her mixed-race Australoid baby. That is, if it doesn't kill her, and neither does the C-section, smarty. We all know that you're smart, Athiudisc (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/48958-Athiudisc).

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:06
I can't help but think that varying skull morphology of that type probably isn't a huge factor when birthing a child, due simply to the relative size involved. I would tend to think that the varying shapes within a population group are just as significant in the specific instance of passing through a birth canal, and doubtless accounted for by nature.

But I could be completely wrong, I suppose. Do you have any reference to this actually being an issue?

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:11
I can't help but think that varying skull morphology of that type probably isn't a huge factor when birthing a child, due simply to the relative size involved. I would tend to think that the varying shapes within a population group are just as significant in the specific instance of passing through a birth canal, and doubtless accounted for by nature.

But I could be completely wrong, I suppose. Do you have any reference to this actually being an issue?Why so curious? Why so many questions?

"I can't help but think that varying skull morphology of that type probably isn't a huge factor when birthing a child, due simply to the relative size involved."

Are you serious? Can you explain to me what you just wrote there? Probably? PROBABLY? So it "probably isn't?" wtf!! Ahahahahaha. I've never heard an argument or attempted rebuttal that started with a "probably isn't"...

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:13
So that's a no...

You're losing your grip, Melancon.

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:21
What is a no? What studies do you have? Give me some links that prove that Miscegenation comes with lesser birth defects. Mind you, I want government documents, not something from some news article in the UK.

I believe that you are the one who is losing their grip.

Source-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15390318

"A total of 11.2% of births were to parents of mixed race-ethnicity. Compared to births of parents who were both white, moderately increased risks (risk ratio >/= 1.7) of anencephaly, polydactyly, and microtia, and decreased risks (risk ratio </= 0.6) of hypospadias and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis were observed among births of several mixed race-ethnicity groups. For anencephaly, polydactyly, and microtia, but not other phenotypes, the risks were different depending on whether maternal versus paternal race-ethnicity was considered. Risks observed between births of a nonwhite parent and a white parent and births of parents who were both nonwhite were similar for most malformation phenotypes."

There is your proof that Miscegenation right there, comes with more risk factors for birth defects...if I cannot get it into your head, then it is worthless. People are free to marry whomever they want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:24
You want a study showing that there aren't problems attendant to birthing a child of mixed origin due to cranial shape?

:laughing:

Do you have a single study suggesting that there are?

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:29
Um, I just linked you one.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:33
You must have provided the wrong link. The differing skull shapes of population groups are not malformations, and are not addressed in the study you referenced.

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:38
You won't find, or find very little, in this day and age, the truths of Miscegenation. But pre-WW2 books on anthropology (mostly by Norwegians and Danes) found that the risk of congenital defects and mother-infant mortality during birth were substantially higher with mixed-couples than those of the norm. These people were not Nazi's either. It is harder to find these days, especially in Europe, because Political correctness has attempted to hide this information from the mainstream.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:40
Ok. I don't believe that addresses the idea that women have difficulty birthing a child of mixed origin due to the natural form of either skull or vagina, though, which is what started our exchange.

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:41
Even if I did find that book, it's written in Old Danish - you would not be able to read it. But I am sure there are several anthropology books from pre-WW2 that can be found in almost every country, saying the same things regarding Miscegenation. Try searching Google Books, as will I.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:43
I'm not arguing against the deleterious effects you're speaking of.

I doubt that a thousand year-old book would be of much use.

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:44
Ok. I don't believe that addresses the idea that women have difficulty birthing a child of mixed origin due to the natural form of either skull or vagina, though, which is what started our exchange.How could it not be obvious though? Put two and two together. Imagine a short, skinny Ectomorph East Asian female giving birth to a tall, robust Endomorphic Australoid male's child. You don't believe her tiny body would have problems with that?

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:46
I'm not arguing against the deleterious effects you're speaking of.

I doubt that a thousand year-old book would be of much use.It wasn't a thousand years old. It was written in Old Danish for the simple reason that both Norwegian and Danish anthropologists to read about it....and better understand...

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:46
How could it not be obvious though? Put two and two together. Imagine a short, skinny Ectomorph East Asian female giving birth to a tall, robust Endomorphic Australoid male's child. You don't believe her tiny body would have problems with that?

Not any more than she'd have with the odd stocky Asian child, no.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:47
It wasn't a thousand years old. It was written in Old Danish for the simple reason that both Norwegian and Danish anthropologists to read about it....and better understand...

Ok. I wasn't aware this was a thing, honestly.

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:53
I'm not arguing against the deleterious effects you're speaking of.

I doubt that a thousand year-old book would be of much use.Miscegenation was also banned in the South until 1967-

https://aspoonfulofsuga.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/banning-interracial-marriage.gif

Oops, another ignorance of you, exposed. 1967. Makes me wonder if you are a native to Tennessee.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:55
I never claimed to be. Much like I never claimed anything regarding anti-miscegenation laws.

Oops on your part. Keep it together.

Virtue
16-08-16, 15:55
Not any more than she'd have with the odd stocky Asian child, no.But the point is, how common is the odd stocky child? And what are it's odds to be born with a birth defect, compared to a different race?

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 15:58
Birth defects have nothing to do with it. I still see nothing to suggest that the natural shape of a child's skull, if that child is of mixed origin, conflicts with the natural shape of a woman's vagina to such a degree as to cause birthing difficulties due to those factors alone.

Angela
16-08-16, 16:04
Cancer is as old as man:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/oldest-human-cancer-disease-origins-tumor-fossil-science/

Most cancers occur after age 60. In large measure it's a disease of aging. What percentage of people used to live to 60? In previous eras they also didn't know what caused certain symptoms. Yes, ancient physicians could see a mass in the abdomen or breast, but what about masses in the lungs, or bone cancer, or liver cancer, or primary brain tumors, or blood cancers, and on and on. The "bloody flux" could be caused by a lot of things, and one of them is bowel cancer.

If some posters aren't aware of the genetic component to cancer, I don't know where they've been. Not only certain forms of breast cancer run in families. So do certain forms of bowel cancer, as in my mother's family, or liver cancer as in former President Carter's family, where practically everyone of his generation in his family have gotten it except him.

That isn't to say that certain environmental factors don't impact it. If you have a "risk" allele, your odds are higher, and environmental factors may increase it. If you have multiple "risk" alleles you'll probably get it no matter what you do. If you have all "good" alleles, you can probably do and be exposed to pretty much everything. That's why I had a great-uncle who smoked, drank a little too much, and ate the fattiest and most carbohydrate high diet imaginable until he finally kicked the bucket at 93.

I also think it's romanticizing the past to think that people living then were not exposed to harmful agents, and that goes for hunter-gatherers too. When scientists examine their lungs, they're covered in soot from all the fires in enclosed places. I would think smiths would have been exposed to lots of toxic agents. Plus, as has been mentioned, animals carry disease. Look at the bovine disease that's been found in one of the Caucasus herders.

As to autism, I definitely think there is a genetic component. I'm not going to bother getting the cites to papers; everyone should know this by now. There are families with a very high incidence, sometimes more than one child in a family. In addition to the genetics factor, the age of the father at conception may also be a factor. Another one that I think should be studied is drug use in both the mother and the father. I don't know if it's just coincidence, but the people I know who were heavy into drugs seem to have children with more "issues", whether it's autism, developmental delay, ADHD, and other types of disorders as well.

The Amish have their own unique genetic profile, as Maciamo pointed out, because of the inbreeding since the founding of their religion in German speaking Switzerland and surrounding areas. Certain diseases are more frequent than in the average population, and certain ones less frequent. They also have certain recessive genetic diseases, and are studied for them, because of that inbreeding.


For the record, nobody goes through public education in the U.S. or into the army or gets hired for certain jobs unless they present their vaccination certificate, so it's beyond me how someone could say they've never been vaccinated.

And here we go with the racist angle again. Some people only see through that lens, apparently. Do you know how much variation there is in Europe, even within one country? In my father's family they all have huge heads, a trait which both my brother and I inherited. My mother said that birthing us was a nightmare, and we were average weight, but it wasn't impossible, and we were both natural childbirth babies: no interventions. Head size is also to some extent dependent on over all weight. How easy do you think it is to give birth to a baby eight pounds and bigger? You guys do also realize that the head of the baby is pretty malleable at birth right? That's for a reason. If you've seen a lot of newborns, the head can be pretty misshapen for a lot of them.

If you can't provide the scientific proof for this then don't raise it as an issue. This isn't the place for voodoo science.

Virtue
16-08-16, 16:06
Birth defects have nothing to do with it. I still see nothing to suggest that the natural shape of a child's skull, if that child is of mixed origin, conflicts with the natural shape of a woman's vagina to such a degree as to cause birthing difficulties due to those factors alone.I read it in a book, I don't have the book anymore as it was in an old Scandinavian library. But I remember the vagina (for all races) was not fit to give birth to a race of a different cranial size, and this raised the risk for both mother and infant mortality, and also for the infant, brain damage and mental retardation percentages were extremely higher than average.

I have a hard time believing you have had children. Cause child birth without proper supervision can be very dangerous, even with your own race.

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 16:07
I never claimed to have children, either...

Virtue
16-08-16, 16:12
Cancer is as old as man:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/oldest-human-cancer-disease-origins-tumor-fossil-science/

Most cancers occur after age 60. In large measure it's a disease of aging. What percentage of people used to live to 60? In previous eras they also didn't know what caused certain symptoms. Yes, ancient physicians could see a mass in the abdomen or breast, but what about masses in the lungs, or bone cancer, or liver cancer, or primary brain tumors, or blood cancers, and on and on. The "bloody flux" could be caused by a lot of things, and one of them is bowel cancer.

If some posters aren't aware of the genetic component to cancer, I don't know where they've been. Not only certain forms of breast cancer run in families. So do certain forms of bowel cancer, as in my mother's family, or liver cancer as in former President Carter's family, where practically everyone of his generation in his family have gotten it except him.

That isn't to say that certain environmental factors don't impact it. If you have a "risk" allele, your odds are higher, and environmental factors may increase it. If you have multiple "risk" alleles you'll probably get it no matter what you do. If you have all "good" alleles, you can probably do and be exposed to pretty much everything. That's why I had a great-uncle who smoked, drank a little too much, and ate the fattiest and most carbohydrate high diet imaginable until he finally kicked the bucket at 93.

I also think it's romanticizing the past to think that people living then were not exposed to harmful agents, and that goes for hunter-gatherers too. When scientists examine their lungs, they're covered in soot from all the fires in enclosed places. I would think smiths would have been exposed to lots of toxic agents. Plus, as has been mentioned, animals carry disease. Look at the bovine disease that's been found in one of the Caucasus herders.

As to autism, I definitely think there is a genetic component. I'm not going to bother getting the cites to papers; everyone should know this by now. There are families with a very high incidence, sometimes more than one child in a family. In addition to the genetics factor, the age of the father at conception may also be a factor. Another one that I think should be studied is drug use in both the mother and the father. I don't know if it's just coincidence, but the people I know who were heavy into drugs seem to have children with more "issues", whether it's autism, developmental delay, ADHD, and other types of disorders as well.

The Amish have their own unique genetic profile, as Maciamo pointed out, because of the inbreeding since the founding of their religion in German speaking Switzerland and surrounding areas. Certain diseases are more frequent than in the average population, and certain ones less frequent. They also have certain recessive genetic diseases, and are studied for them, because of that inbreeding.


For the record, nobody goes through public education in the U.S. or into the army or gets hired for certain jobs unless they present their vaccination certificate, so it's beyond me how someone could say they've never been vaccinated.No offense, but what makes your opinion (or point of view) so different? I can assure you that I am an expert in this field.

Oh, and here we are...

1 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html

Even if cancer has existed in ancient times, it does not make it genetic. It could be man-made or made from environmental sources. (ancient human beings traveling in the wrong environment and getting some bad chemicals in the air. Maybe smog or some waste.)

Think back in tribal days. There were very little reports of cancer until the European industrial revolution. As I said before..

Virtue
16-08-16, 16:13
I never claimed to have children, either...But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you have to be responsible, am I correct?

Athiudisc
16-08-16, 16:15
Sure. Parents or would-be parents should be responsible. No argument there.

Virtue
16-08-16, 16:41
The Amish have their own unique genetic profile, as Maciamo pointed out, because of the inbreeding since the founding of their religion in German speaking Switzerland and surrounding areas. Certain diseases are more frequent than in the average population, and certain ones less frequent. They also have certain recessive genetic diseases, and are studied for them, because of that inbreeding.


For the record, nobody goes through public education in the U.S. or into the army or gets hired for certain jobs unless they present their vaccination certificate, so it's beyond me how someone could say they've never been vaccinated.

And here we go with the racist angle again. Some people only see through that lens, apparently. Do you know how much variation there is in Europe, even within one country? In my father's family they all have huge heads, a trait which both my brother and I inherited. My mother said that birthing us was a nightmare, and we were average weight, but it wasn't impossible, and we were both natural childbirth babies: no interventions. Head size is also to some extent dependent on over all weight. How easy do you think it is to give birth to a baby eight pounds and bigger? You guys do also realize that the head of the baby is pretty malleable at birth right? That's for a reason. If you've seen a lot of newborns, the head can be pretty misshapen for a lot of them.

If you can't provide the scientific proof for this then don't raise it as an issue. This isn't the place for voodoo science.What voodoo science? If Maciamo is an anthropologist, he should know these things. I posted the replicas of the skulls...? I have never been vaccinated before, and I thank my mom and dad for that. I have had chicken pox at 2 years old, so the only thing I have to worry about is shingles later in life. And it is true that it is difficult for the mother of a different race to give birth to a mixed-race child. People of different races do not have the same average sizes in their bodies. It's not racism, it's a fact of life. There can be births among mixed-raced individuals, and they can come out healthy. But would someone really want to risk that?

Most Europeans, especially in Eastern Europe, that have a Mongol ancestor, do so by accident. (because of centuries of Mongol invasions and raping.) There are even Eastern European whites that show descendence from Ghengis Khan. likewise though, it is very rare. And I would not be surprised if congenital diseases or certain autoimmune diseases were more prevalent among these "white" admixed individuals.

Angela
16-08-16, 16:53
No offense, but what makes your opinion (or point of view) so different? I can assure you that I am an expert in this field.

Oh, and here we are...

1 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html

Even if cancer has existed in ancient times, it does not make it genetic. It could be man-made or made from environmental sources. (ancient human beings traveling in the wrong environment and getting some bad chemicals in the air. Maybe smog or some waste.)

Think back in tribal days. There were very little reports of cancer until the European industrial revolution. As I said before..

You've been answered as to why there are fewer reports before the industrial revolution.

What makes my opinion different is that it's based on science.

As to the genetic factors involved with certain cancers I don't know how anyone living in 2016 can be unaware of the genes already linked to this disease. Ever heard of the breast cancer genes just as one example?

To deny that genetic risk is voodoo science.

As to this whole racial angle, as I said above, if you don't have modern scientific references, don't expect anyone to give it any credence. It's voodoo science.

@Althiudisc,
Yes, people should be responsible parents.I just read some horrifying statistic about the number of newborns in West Virginia, of all places, who go through drug withdrawal from heroin. Stuff like this makes me crazy. Forget the cost to the taxpayer at the child's birth and perhaps for the rest of its life; think about the suffering of the child then and later on.

However, the danger for the child is not only in what the mother ingests or is exposed to during pregnancy, but in the chromosomal damage caused by certain drugs that could have taken place long before she even became pregnant, or that was suffered by the father. Also, a great deal of damage can be caused in the first month or so of pregnancy before the mother is even aware that she's pregnant.

As to "unsupervised" childbirth, for most of human history children were delivered by midwives, so they weren't "unsupervised". A good midwife could be very skilled, and usually cleaner than most doctors. Let's not forget that nobody knew about bacteria. A doctor could be coming from treating someone with a massive infection, or from an amputation or a death bed, and then sticking his hands into some poor woman to turn the infant without washing his hands first.

There's also a difference between "natural childbirth" and "unsupervised" childbirth. As I said, when a midwife is present, it's not "unsupervised". Furthermore, even in a hospital, which is where I would personally advise women today to give birth, just in the event of a breech birth, or the cord winding up around the baby's neck, or prolonged bleeding etc. you can have "natural" or no drug childbirth, or you can take various pain killers and have some surgical procedures to make the birth "easier", in addition to Caesarian sections. Obviously, if the baby is in difficulty you want to get the Caesarian. However, absent that, both mother and infant are far better off without the drugs and episiotomy. Also, midwives do practice in hospitals, with the doctor as a back up.

Anyway, we're wandering a bit off track.

Promenade
16-08-16, 19:24
Most viruses transmitted by animals are only passed when eating the raw or undercooked meat from these animals. That's why humans get avian flu from eating chicken and swine flu from pork, but we never get viruses from cats and dogs who live in much closer proximity. There has been cases of deadly bacteria between passed from animals to humans, as with the plague (yersinia pestis bacteria), but even in that case it usually evolves another vector (rate fleas in the case of the plague) that typically only develops in condition of very poor hygiene.

I was mentioning Bacteria specifically, but we can still receive swine flu and avian flu without consuming them and just from being in close contact these animals. We are also more likely to get swine and avian flue because the influenza strains have mixed with one another through antigenic shift and some strains are able to infect humans, birds and pigs.(In the same way Dogs have received strains of influenza from horses but the strains havent mutated to a place where we could contract influenza from them or vice versa, as far as I know) We have also spent a munch longer period of our history alongside Dogs compared to Pigs and have grown used to each others microbiomes.

Coriolan
16-08-16, 19:45
What voodoo science? If Maciamo is an anthropologist, he should know these things. I posted the replicas of the skulls...? I have never been vaccinated before, and I thank my mom and dad for that. I have had chicken pox at 2 years old, so the only thing I have to worry about is shingles later in life.

So you were not vaccinated against bacterial meningitis? Explains a lot.

Virtue
16-08-16, 20:00
So you were not vaccinated against bacterial meningitis? Explains a lot.And what does that mean?