Study of Holocaust survivors finds trauma passed on to children's genes

originally posted by: supamoto
a reply to: auroraaus

What a load of poo!
So you're saying only jewish victims have the required social circumstance for this dna transmission/mutation?
Other ethnic groups who have also been subjected to genocide can't have it because their circumstance was socially different?
I would really like to move on from the jewish 'holocaust' as would many people of the world, IMHO.

Uh, that was NOT what I was saying at all. Blimey!

I was merely pointing out that the results would be different for differing groups, that this study can be a spring-board into others.

And a big
to the people who also misinterpreted what I was saying.

a reply to: Heliocentric

Bang on.

This is what I was trying to say, what you and Kandinsky said.


What I would like to see is more extensive research undertaken across various groups and to see how the results correlate.

OP here: Well I wasn't trying to make a politically charged statement...just copied the article. If you read the whole thing they talk how epi genetics has worked in mice or some animal towards the end. Im more excited about the implications of it....not trying to draw light on the holocaust.

But as with all science...can it be repeated and manipulated to show this hypothesis can make it to the theory stage. I still find this really interesting.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
More fodder for the Holocaust Industry. More bilking for multiple generations.

Dude, really? Really??

Really. Do you even live in the real world?

There used to be a term for this sort of "science": Lysenkoism.

originally posted by: Heliocentric


You both missed the point. This article is not about the Holocaust, it's about the capacity of the DNA to evolve and mutate due to physical and emotional experience.

I don't know what's more pathetic, people trying to profit politically or economically from the so called 'Holocaust industry', or closet Nazis trying to profit from denouncing it.

I don't think I missed the point of the article, I think you missed my point.

I'm not arguing against the idea that trauma can be passed down, I'm saying the way this is presented is ridiculous. They mention another study about pregnant mothers during a famine causing increased mental illness in their offspring. Well is it the lack of food causing the issue or the psychological damage of existing in an environment where famine is occurring? Both? Because I'm sure we can find people all over the world who are children of starving mothers, this gene should be in all of them correct?

How do you quantify mental anguish? I'm feeling about 32 SMAUs (standardized mental anguish units) right now, does that mean anything? What's the scale?

They are saying "if situation x happens, then the outcome is yy damage" but "situation X" is not a defined thing. That's the problem. I don't care that they mention the holocaust. I care that the science they are using requires one to quantify human suffering, and I do not believe that is something within science's ability to do. Suffering is an incredibly subjective and individual experience, for them to assign scientific values to it disgusts me.

If someone went through something horrible, and they were examined and found to NOT have any of this genetic damage, does that mean science has proven that this person didn't really suffer that badly?

A little clearer now?

I believe the pineal gland is a source for ancestry information

a reply to: James1982

I missed the part of the article that says quantifying human suffering was part of the methodology or somehow inferred in the results.

From what I read, the study was a comparative analysis of a specific set of genes (and their suspected epigenetic tags) known to be related to the stress response in humans.

All data were gathered from Jewish people... probably because Mount Sinai was originally (but is no longer exclusively) a Jewish hospital.

The comparison was identifying any differences between the stress-response genetic markers in the "first-hand" population vs. the "absentee" population.

Not surprising there would be a difference between those populations.

What is surprising* is that difference carried down to the next generation.

(*This is surprising only to scientists who spend their lives with their heads buried in books and microscopes... the rest of us are like "well Duh!", and we know that not because we are Jewish descendants... but because there is a sh*tload of evil that happens in this world to many many people... not only do the victims of hate and violence and evil have a rough time of it, so do their kids. Years later, and even if the kids are adopted or fostered out at birth).

a reply to: Kandinsky

Well said.

I'm not a microbiologist even remotely, so darn, I guess I'll just have to read the results and see what the real microbiologists have to say...

This study had narrow parameters and studied a certain group, but in NO WAY precluded the results applying to any other group with similar stressors. I don't know how people are missing that. In fact, the results indicate that other groups SHOULD be tested to see if the results prove to be consistent, or if certain genes create more or less resilience in people, etc. I think it is fascinating.

I wonder if the old saying attributed to Native Americans regarding acting as if something could effect the next seven generations has any truth to it?

Epigenetics is a very strong player in many diseases, too, like autism. Epigenetics may even provide answers or a future reduction/prevention of diseases like this in the future. It is a very important field of study.

Perhaps the philosophy of something effecting "7 generations" is not so far off?


- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

I wonder if the old saying attributed to Native Americans regarding acting as if something could effect the next seven generations has any truth to it?

Perhaps it will become a concept that serves public policy decisions? Maybe even the way we conduct our conflicts? We might be 'bringing peace (lol)' and actually creating several generations of mental ill-health in the societies of the 'saved.' On top of that, what of our societies? I mean those where poverty is rife and people live their lives at a high rate of stress. If malnourished Dutch women gave birth to schizophrenic girls, can it happen in the ghettoes and projects?

Further East, when Islamic State have faded and been replaced, what effects will their actions have on subsequent generations?

Where you mention autism, that thought had crossed my mind too. Rising rates of diagnosis etc. These studies might uncover another subtle factor in the creation of conditions like autism. Who knows?

You're always a voice of reason AB

originally posted by: yulka
I believe the pineal gland is a source for ancestry information

You're an interesting person.