Archive for May 18th, 2006

Don’t Overreact

Some people will misinterpret the article below:

“P is for Peter, P Is for Pain.”

They will say, “Bob, you are telling a senstive young man that everybody hates him.”

That is NOT what I am saying.

Most people don’t know Peter that well.


1 Comment

“Race Does not Exist” — Another PC Myth Goes Down

The Wall Street Journal is America’s most fanatically anti-white national publication. They want third world immigration desperately.

The official WSJ position has for decades been that an amendment to the US Constitution should be passed that simply says:

“There shall be no borders.”

But even WSJ has to sometimes report the truth:

Race Linked to Genetic Markers

Wall Street Journal, 02/01/2005

In the latest study to wade into the question of whether race is a biologically based

category or a socially constructed label, scientists at Stanford University claim to have

found that 326 genetic ‘markers’ — segments of DNA — can be used to cluster people into

four groups, with each group corresponding to common racial categories: white,

African-American, East Asian and Hispanic.

For more than a decade some geneticists and anthropologists have argued that race isn’t

biologically real and therefore shouldn’t be used in medical research and clinical practice.

The argument is based on the fact that, for
thousands of years, humans have been marrying and having children with people of different ancestry, with the result that everyone’s genes come from the same big, humanwide pool.

The mapping of the human genome and growing interest in race-based pharmaceuticals have stirred the debate in recent years.

The study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, involved 3,636 people enrolled in a large trial on the genetics of hypertension. To see

whether genetic markers correspond to the standard racial categories, the scientists first analyzed the volunteers’ DNA, identifying which genetic markers they carried. They then used

a computer program to cluster people based on genetic similarities; those who shared genetic markers were grouped together. Finally, the scientists compared those groupings with the volunteers’ self-identified race. The result: people who considered themselves white had

been grouped by the computer, based on their genetic markers, in one cluster, while people who consider themselves African-American had been grouped in a second, different cluster.

The same held for Hispanics and East Asians. Only five people had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the racial or ethnic box they checked at the outset of the tudy.

“People have argued that race and ethnicity are purely social categories,” says Neil Risch, the study’s lead author, who is director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University

of California, San Francisco. “We’ve shown that socially defined ethnic categories correspond with genetic categories.” The findings are convincing because of the large number of genetic markers — 326 — used to cluster the participants, he says.

The study of the relationship between race and genetics largely is viewed in the medical community as a way to better understand why some ethnic groups suffer and die

disproportionately from certain illnesses than others. It also could help physicians predict which patients might respond better to certain drugs, geneticists say.

But using random genetic markers to show links to ancient geographic ancestry doesn’t reveal much about how such markers might be predictive in disease, says geneticist J. Craig Venter,

who led the private effort to sequence the human genome and is part of the J. Craig Venter Institute. The markers aren’t actually genes, but merely segments of DNA whose function is unknown.