Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117
Thanks Tree51Thanks

Thread: Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With

  1. #31
    Moderator MeBelle's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,347
    Thanks
    3102

    From
    San Fran (temp)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    Done and dusted!

    In actuality, however, that*study (which was published in PLOS ONE in 2012, despite being billed as “new” in 2017) demonstrated for the first time the presence of genetically distinct male cells in the brains of women (who had been examined in autopsy). The existence of male cells in the bodies of females, in general, is not news. As discussed in a PLOS ONE blog*post describing that 2012 study, their presence is typically ascribed to cells from a male fetus from a prior pregnancy:

    The idea of two genetically distinct populations of cells, or their DNA, residing in one individual isn’t new. It’s called microchimerism. […] Medical chimerism arises after a transfusion or transplant, and it may follow pregnancy. Our microbiomes, the bacteria within us, are more like guests than body parts.

    [The research groups responsible for the 2012 study] found Y chromosome DNA sequences in several brain regions in autopsy slides from 37 out of 59 women. Such DNA liberated from fetal cells can come from several sources: children, fetuses that never made it to be born, older siblings, or twins. Both son and daughter DNA partake in this “feto-maternal trafficking,” but female DNA, at the chromosomal level, is harder to detect amid the maternal two X’s.


    The most likely source of male [microchimerism, Mc] in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin, an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion.

    But, YOURNEWSWIRE thought it meant something different:

    Through the study the researchers assumed that the most likely answer was that all male DNA found living in the female brain came from a male pregnancy. That was the safe, politically correct assumption. But these researchers were living in denial. Because when they autopsied the brains of women who had never even been pregnant, let alone with a male child, they STILL found male DNA cells prevalent in the female brain.
    At this point the scientists didn’t know what the hell was going on. Confused, they did their best to hide the evidence until they could understand and explain it. They buried it in numerous sub studies and articles, but if you sift through them all you will find the damning statement, the one line that gives the game away and explains exactly where these male DNA cells come from.


    Of course YNW offer no sources to back up their claims.



    WHERE does it say the study is 'new' in the OP?



    Ahhhhhhh, I see, you just came to troll the poster not the actual OP.

  2. #32
    Established Member Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,828
    Thanks
    4566

    From
    Under a Southern Sky
    Quote Originally Posted by MeBelle View Post
    Published!

    Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain

    Citation: Chan WFN, Gurnot C, Montine TJ, Sonnen JA, Guthrie KA, Nelson JL (2012) Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain. PLoS ONE 7(9): e45592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045592

    Editor: Martin Gerbert Frasch, Université de Montréal, Canada

    Received: April 30, 2012; Accepted: August 23, 2012; Published: September 26, 2012

    Copyright: © Chan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

    Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NS 071418 and AI-41721 to JLN). WFNC was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship Award (SIB-95173). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


    Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
    Yes, I already cited that study and my post challenges it.

  3. #33
    Moderator MeBelle's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,347
    Thanks
    3102

    From
    San Fran (temp)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    Yes, I already cited that study and my post challenges it.
    You cited snopes.

  4. #34
    Established Member Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,828
    Thanks
    4566

    From
    Under a Southern Sky
    Quote Originally Posted by MeBelle View Post
    [/B]


    WHERE does it say the study is 'new' in the OP?
    I don't care whether it does or not. Is that pertinent?


    Ahhhhhhh, I see, you just came to troll the poster not the actual OP.
    Ok, how did you figure that little nugget of wisdom out? Did you just pull it out of your fundament? I'm offering a balanced viewpoint and you call it trolling? W T F ?
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #35
    Moderator MeBelle's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,347
    Thanks
    3102

    From
    San Fran (temp)
    Quote Originally Posted by MeBelle View Post
    [/B]


    WHERE does it say the study is 'new' in the OP?



    Ahhhhhhh, I see, you just came to troll the poster not the actual OP.
    My apologies for the troll comment. I thought YNW = You Know Who, not YourNewsWire.

  6. #36
    Established Member Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,828
    Thanks
    4566

    From
    Under a Southern Sky
    Quote Originally Posted by MeBelle View Post
    You cited snopes.
    Which cited the study. You did get that I hope.
    Thanks from Friday13

  7. #37
    Moderator MeBelle's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,347
    Thanks
    3102

    From
    San Fran (temp)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    I don't care whether it does or not. Is that pertinent?




    Ok, how did you figure that little nugget of wisdom out? Did you just pull it out of your fundament? I'm offering a balanced viewpoint and you call it trolling? W T F ?
    Yes it's pertinent. You are referring to snopes, not the OP.

    See post #35

    Sorry I hurt your feelings.

  8. #38
    Moderator MeBelle's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    8,347
    Thanks
    3102

    From
    San Fran (temp)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    Which cited the study. You did get that I hope.
    There were 2 or 3 studies cited in the article.

    And it was supported by NIH.

    https://www.nih.gov/

  9. #39
    Established Member Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,828
    Thanks
    4566

    From
    Under a Southern Sky
    Quote Originally Posted by MeBelle View Post
    Yes it's pertinent. You are referring to snopes, not the OP.
    Yes, as I said, I check for balance.

    See post #35

    Sorry I hurt your feelings.
    You didn't. I just thought it was an odd response.
    Thanks from MeBelle

  10. #40
    Established Member Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,828
    Thanks
    4566

    From
    Under a Southern Sky
    Quote Originally Posted by MeBelle View Post
    There were 2 or 3 studies cited in the article.

    And it was supported by NIH.

    https://www.nih.gov/
    From what I'm reading much of this is speculative:

    A total of 154 girls were studied of which 21 (13.6%) tested positive for male microchimerism. There was a tendency that girls were more likely to test positive for male microchimerism if their mothers previously had received transfusion, had given birth to a son or had had a spontaneous abortion. Furthermore, the oldest girls were more likely to test positive for male microchimerism.
    However, less than half of microchimerism positivity was attributable to these factors. In conclusion, data suggest that male microchimerism in young girls may originate from an older brother either full born or from a discontinued pregnancy or from transfusion during pregnancy. We speculate that sexual intercourse may be important but other sources of male cells likely exist in young girls.


    Your link only goes to a home page.
    Thanks from MeBelle, BigLeRoy and OldGaffer

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why Democrats will retain the White House in 2016
    By Amelia in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: 24th August 2015, 05:38 AM
  2. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 12th April 2014, 10:12 AM
  3. Democrats must find and retain their courage!
    By Supposn in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th November 2010, 07:56 AM
  4. Will Democrats retain Control in 2010?
    By conservative in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 2nd July 2009, 10:00 AM
  5. Which man is more right in their views on how to retain liberty?
    By The_Bear in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 3rd August 2007, 11:13 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed