Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Allergies-Why do Amish children suffer less from them?

  1. #1
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,149


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Allergies-Why do Amish children suffer less from them?

    See:
    http://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/amis...form=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.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #2
    Regular Member Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    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.

  3. #3
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    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? ;)
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    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.

  5. #5
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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).
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  6. #6
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Virtue View Post
    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) found that autism was more prevalent in rural areas than in cities!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    14-12-11
    Location
    Bărăgan
    Posts
    249

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Argeș(~SER+MAC)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Walati(Vlachs)

    Ethnic group
    Thraco-Roman
    Country: Romania



    Mind your tone,mister.
    I suppose that the intelligence doesn't always get
    along with decency.

  8. #8
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Promenade View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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) 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..

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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) 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/2013-04-0...ly-homogeneous

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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) found that autism was more prevalent in rural areas than in cities!
    Why Don't The Amish Get Cancer?-

    http://simplecapacity.com/2016/04/wh...sh-get-cancer/


    A recent study published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control 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/nep...le.cfm?ID=5307



    Why don't Amish children get Autism?

    http://yournewswire.com/why-dont-ami...en-get-autism/



    All from a completely different sources, by the way.

  12. #12
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Virtue View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Virtue View Post
    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/2013-04-0...ly-homogeneous
    Another unsubstantiated claim. The Japanese may have high life expectancy, but they have one of the world's highest rates of gastric cancer 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: 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.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Another unsubstantiated claim. The Japanese may have high life expectancy, but they have one of the world's highest rates of gastric cancer 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: 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.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Virtue View Post
    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, 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 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.

  17. #17
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,455


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by Virtue View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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, 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 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, 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 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 and reference to Asperger, "Autistic Psychopathy in Childhood" in Selected Articles 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."

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    the vagina of the mother is not equipped to give birth to the fetus of another race
    I...

    ...

    ...what?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Athiudisc View Post
    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...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    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...

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Athiudisc View Post
    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-



    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Athiudisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-14
    Posts
    213

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L45
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K2b1a

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Islander
    Country: USA - Tennessee



    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?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-08-16
    Posts
    84


    Country: USA - Louisiana



    Quote Originally Posted by Athiudisc View Post
    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"...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •