-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
News Beware - this is freaky
- Post starter hodge
- Start date
- Status
EveHarrington
VIP Member
Please leave me alone.
I am not an expert on this subject in particular, but I skimmed through the above referenced article. While I understand the sensationalism of the original article from the OP, there are a few things to consider. Frequently, popular press articles are written by individuals with no scientific background. The reporter will call a scientist and ask questions. Many scientists are poor communicators, or they speak at a level that is so technical and full of jargon that it sounds like a foreign language to a lay person. Reporters pick up on what they can, and frequently the story reported has only shades of truth to it. Basically, they know enough to be dangerous.
Keeping that in mind, it is always a good idea to go back to the original source of the science (or the peer reviewed scientific article in a reputable journal). I don't pretend to have done extensive research on this subject matter, nor do I intend to, but I an extremely quick search seems to indicate that these articles are not new.
The Plos One article cited by Hodge Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain is from 2012. This is ancient in terms of genetic research, particularly a study that claims to be cutting edge. A few things I noticed reading through the article...
1) At the beginning of the discussion section it states that changes in blood brain barrier permeability occur during pregnancy which could allow for cells to cross into the brain. Having sex does not indicate pregnancy, hence this "change" would not yet have occurred.
2) The authors repeatedly state that the most likely source of the male DNA in the brain is from a male fetus. Other options were through a male twin or blood transfusion. They also state the sample size was modest and pregnancy history was largely not known.
3) Other tissues were not sampled for comparison. In other words, only the brain tissue was sampled. They also state, that the male cells appear "to integrate and generate specific cell types in tissues". I would assume this to mean that if the DNA can integrate into the individuals genome, and other cells were not tested, theoretically, some of this material could have been passed along from a previous generation. Granted, this could be a stretch and would depend on it integrating into sex cells.
Again, I am not an expert on this, nor have I done anything but skim the discussion and bits and pieces of the materials and methods of the linked Plos One article, but nowhere do I see it mentioned that these male cells in the brain come from having sex with no resulting male pregnancy ( at least in this article).
I don't care to explore further. Lol.
Keeping that in mind, it is always a good idea to go back to the original source of the science (or the peer reviewed scientific article in a reputable journal). I don't pretend to have done extensive research on this subject matter, nor do I intend to, but I an extremely quick search seems to indicate that these articles are not new.
The Plos One article cited by Hodge Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain is from 2012. This is ancient in terms of genetic research, particularly a study that claims to be cutting edge. A few things I noticed reading through the article...
1) At the beginning of the discussion section it states that changes in blood brain barrier permeability occur during pregnancy which could allow for cells to cross into the brain. Having sex does not indicate pregnancy, hence this "change" would not yet have occurred.
2) The authors repeatedly state that the most likely source of the male DNA in the brain is from a male fetus. Other options were through a male twin or blood transfusion. They also state the sample size was modest and pregnancy history was largely not known.
3) Other tissues were not sampled for comparison. In other words, only the brain tissue was sampled. They also state, that the male cells appear "to integrate and generate specific cell types in tissues". I would assume this to mean that if the DNA can integrate into the individuals genome, and other cells were not tested, theoretically, some of this material could have been passed along from a previous generation. Granted, this could be a stretch and would depend on it integrating into sex cells.
Again, I am not an expert on this, nor have I done anything but skim the discussion and bits and pieces of the materials and methods of the linked Plos One article, but nowhere do I see it mentioned that these male cells in the brain come from having sex with no resulting male pregnancy ( at least in this article).
I don't care to explore further. Lol.
- Admin
- #52
anthony
Founder
One of those times I'm super happy being a male... :eek::rolleyes: Not helping? Ok... :roflmao::photogenic::woot:
D
Deleted member 37474
What about gay men? What is stored in their brains?
@TexCat, along those lines, they are using a marker that only detects male DNA. They were looking for something very specific and how it relates to AD. Because of the genetic markers used in this study, the possibility of female fetal DNA crossing thr blood brain barrier is never explored. It would not have ever been detected with those markers.
Furthermore, I would assume this is a testable hypothesis as the technology now exists to explore the sequence of the chimeric cells and to compare them to the sequence of the maternal DNA. If the genetic material is fetal, it should be a mix of both parents, and share sequence similarity, while if it is from the male alone the distribution of genes would be far different.
Furthermore, I would assume this is a testable hypothesis as the technology now exists to explore the sequence of the chimeric cells and to compare them to the sequence of the maternal DNA. If the genetic material is fetal, it should be a mix of both parents, and share sequence similarity, while if it is from the male alone the distribution of genes would be far different.
Oh my.
Would this make me a better driver.. ?;)
In all honesty, anonymous above has good points.
They do know and have known for years things like HPV male carriers can pass it to the women they sleep with, re: cervical cancer, and it seems there's a possible link with men who's 1st wives have died from ovarian / women's cancers having a second wife die of the same. And heart disease follows an infectious pattern when studied within countries (and oddly is not related to fat consumption, rather prevention being a balance of omega 3: omega 6 1:1 ratio fats), etc.
I didn't read for detail, but sampling brain tissue would require the subjects to be dead. All cells begin with our our DNA/ RNA but differentiate specifically; there are even genes that 'jump' and change position depending what other gene they are beside. And of course damage and repair.
Remember it's a very new science. Even established scientific discoveries are refined with more info- I feel certain so will ptsd.
What they don't know fills volumes. But non-consentual experiences leave enough problems to contend with, without wondering about other freaky sh*t, JMHO. Don't let something freak you out inordinately- you are not genetically programmed to become your abuser(s).
Would this make me a better driver.. ?;)
In all honesty, anonymous above has good points.
They do know and have known for years things like HPV male carriers can pass it to the women they sleep with, re: cervical cancer, and it seems there's a possible link with men who's 1st wives have died from ovarian / women's cancers having a second wife die of the same. And heart disease follows an infectious pattern when studied within countries (and oddly is not related to fat consumption, rather prevention being a balance of omega 3: omega 6 1:1 ratio fats), etc.
I didn't read for detail, but sampling brain tissue would require the subjects to be dead. All cells begin with our our DNA/ RNA but differentiate specifically; there are even genes that 'jump' and change position depending what other gene they are beside. And of course damage and repair.
Remember it's a very new science. Even established scientific discoveries are refined with more info- I feel certain so will ptsd.
What they don't know fills volumes. But non-consentual experiences leave enough problems to contend with, without wondering about other freaky sh*t, JMHO. Don't let something freak you out inordinately- you are not genetically programmed to become your abuser(s).
Last edited:
Yes I agree, scientifically speaking it's a big leap because you don't have a baseline and there could be several alternative explanations. And how much of the genetic code was already shared in common? And everything else blood-borne, from infections to drugs, food, smoking, and environmental changes. Age itself , changes our DNA. And that's not even touching on stem cell involvement.
But, there is food for thought, too. I wouldn't accept it or rule it out, quite yet. It's a hypothesis.
But, there is food for thought, too. I wouldn't accept it or rule it out, quite yet. It's a hypothesis.
Last edited:
trying to heal
Bronze Member
Oh wow i really wish i could have a chemical shower that cleans out my whole body. Yuck!!
A few points regarding @Junebugs comments....
This is a leap, and speculatory, however I am not saying it is wrong either. I was merely pointing out that the Plos One article makes no mention of sex without a resulting pregnancy being the reason for the chimeric cells. They repeatedly mention they dont know the pregnancy history on many of these 100% post mortum samples from primarily old patients with AD. One of the other articles might.
The journal in which this article is published, PLOS ONE is considered a reputable journal and is highly cited. Unlike many journals, however, this one will allow for the publication of negative results. It makes for some interesting reading, and many of the negative result articles are things scientists wish they knew before they also barked up the wrong tree. Negative results are seldom published, and it is one thing that makes this particular journal so interesting to read. You read articles thst say, "we tried this. We dont know everything. This is what we do know." It is a springboard for the next step. The research seems to be in its infancy.
The genes they were looking for in this article were male specific however, and it is highly unlikely they were a result of DNA damage or repair.
As Junebug pointed out, however, dont let it freak you out. Even if it is true, it does not make you your abuser. Consider this if you are concerned about a few genes from your abuser. Humans and chimps share 98.8 percent of their overall DNA. The similarity with pigs isn't far behind. Does this make us act exactly like chimps and pigs? Of course not.
Also, if you read the article carefully, these aberrant cells were not found in super high concentrations in this study, nor were they found everywhere in the body. Ask yourself now, if you have a virus living in your cells, do you consider yourslef not you, but a virus?
So, first of all, this is an early study, and second, you are not your abuser noe will you become them just even if a few of his cells have taken up residence.
You have given him enough of your headspace already. Forget about the article!
And the better driving genes might be a good thing for me @Junebug ;)
A literal black widow. Scary, but what a great way to enforce child support. :sneaky:
:roflmao: BWA HAAHAA!! :hilarious:
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
