What's new

I think I might know the new battle cry of the professional Victim... Epigenetics


Refugee from syrup
May 19, 2020
Member Number
East Coast
So if your ancestors had any trauma in their lives then this "inherited trauma" is in your genetics and there is nothing you can do about it, You have been hurt by the world. Waiting to see if this catches on.

we are doomed

The Trouble With Epigenetics, the Trendy Topic of ‘Inherited Trauma’

Is pain really ‘passed down through DNA’? The new trauma discourse rests on scant evidence — and, dangerously, glosses over the greater truth

In an episode of Dear White People that Mashable declared required viewing for “every ally,” the show’s Black protagonist, Sam, engages in a heated argument with her white ex, Gabe, about his hamfisted attempt to highlight racial injustice by making a documentary called Am I Racist?. The argument reaches a crescendo when Gabe tells Sam she needs to be more vulnerable about her experience of racism, and Sam fires back by describing her trauma, which she says isn’t just psychological, but bodily:
SAM: Have you heard of epigenetics?
GABE: No… Are you gonna tell me what it is?
SAM: Yup. Joelle was talking about it the other day. Shit, what was she saying? Oh right, it’s the inheritance of pain. Basically, scientists have figured out that people who experience intense trauma, like slavery, pass that down through their DNA, so pain and suffering is literally in my blood.
GABE: How do you spell that?
SAM: Why?
GABE: I’m Googling it.
SAM: You don’t need to Google it. I just told you what it is.
These few minutes of dialogue illustrate a popular lay understanding of the science of epigenetics and trauma, specifically the idea that highly stressful events can cause changes to a person’s biology that they pass down to their children and grandchildren. Journalist James Greig recently argued that trauma is the “dominant frame for thinking about unhappiness,” and British epidemiologist George Davey Smith has called epigenetics “the currently fashionable response to any question to which you do not know the answer.” So naturally, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of trauma has become a trendy idea, especially at the intersection of social justice and wellness circles.
Public interest in epigenetics has grown steadily since the mid-2000s, when the news media began reporting on influential studies in the field with tantalizing headlines like, “A PAINFUL LEGACY: Parents’ Emotional Trauma May Change Their Children’s Biology” and “Study of Holocaust Survivors Finds Trauma Passed on to Children’s Genes.” But the field is in its infancy, and there’s an enormous amount scientists don’t know, which is why journalists usually temper the bold claims in headlines with words of caution from experts. Neuroscientist Johannes Bohacek of ETH Zurich told Science that “the jury is still out on humans” (many of the studies in this field are conducted on mice), and Columbia University biologist Katherine Crocker warned that “there’s a lot of overinterpretation of initial results.”
However, these words of caution haven’t prevented runaway interpretations of the science from proliferating on social media, where you’ll routinely encounter claims that “trauma changes your DNA” and that you can “genetically inherit your parents’ pain.” “Today, thanks to lots of research and studies, we know that what [our ancestors] went through affected them so greatly it altered their DNA at a biological level,” reads a characteristic example on Twitter with more than 47,000 likes. “In other words, your ancestors needed therapy so badly that you need therapy as a result of sharing that traumatized DNA.”
And today, thanks to lots of research and studies, we know that what they went through affected them so greatly it altered their DNA at a biological level. In other words, your ancestors needed therapy so badly that you need therapy as a result of sharing that traumatized DNA.But the idea that people with stressed ancestors inherit “traumatized DNA” is an enormous leap from the modest conclusions in the scientific literature, which are themselves controversial. Oliver Rando of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, who uses mice to study intergenerational information transfer, thinks it’s “quite clear” from the research that “your ancestors’ experience can affect some traits in future generations,” and Tracy Bale, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Director of the Center for Epigenetic Research in Child Health and Brain Development, says there’s “every reason to believe, in both humans and animals, that parental experiences across the lifespan can impart meaningful biological effects on their offspring.”​
Some scientists don’t accept these conclusions (more on that later), but even among those who do, big, unanswered questions remain: What kind of information does an ancestor pass to their descendants? How does this all happen? And what are the ultimate effects in humans?
What kind of information a stressed ancestor passes to their descendants is a “million-dollar question,” Rando says. He favors the view that ancestors pass on “low-bandwidth” or “coarse-grained” information — some general sense of how stressful the world is, essentially. He thinks it’s “unlikely” that ancestors pass on complex or “high-bandwidth” information like specific information about the nature of the trauma. “Certainly a lot of skepticism in the field centers around the fact that none of us have figured out how these systems work,” Rando says, and Bale agrees that “the controversy is in the biology.” “You could get changes in someone’s immune system because dad’s traumatic experience imparted some signal when sperm met egg,” she explains. “We don’t really know what that signal might be, but it could be an important signal that tells the egg something.”
For example, this signal might speed up or slow down embryonic development, and if development is sped up, “you may miss out on some of the fine-tuning processes that are important, for instance in the brain,” she continues. “You’re still going to get a baby with 10 fingers and 10 toes, but you might not recognize that the synapses in their brain make that child a little bit more sensitive to their environment or a little less sensitive to their environment.” Bale clarifies that, in humans, this is a complete hypothetical: “Do we know [the end result] in humans? God, no. We’re far away from being able to determine that.”
But perhaps all these questions about mechanisms and effects are premature, and we need to back up to an even more fundamental question: Does transgenerational epigenetic inheritance even occur in humans? Kevin Mitchell, Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College, Dublin, is highly doubtful. “I find that literature completely unconvincing,” he says. “I’ve looked through many of these papers to try to see if there’s anything there, any good evidence for it at all, and there isn’t.”
Mitchell describes these papers as “awful” and says they’re “poster children for questionable research practices.” He’s detailed their methodological and theoretical problems on his blog, Wiring the Brain, in accessible terms (see, for example, his posts here and here). He hasn’t cherry-picked especially bad papers, either, adding that he’s “looked at the most cited papers in the field” in both mice and humans.
One significant problem, he says, is that researchers embark without a specific hypothesis and instead “dredge for statistical significance” by conducting multiple tests, reporting on any difference between groups without correcting for this multiple testing. “It’s basically like, ‘We think something might be happening, let’s take a look. Did we get a hit? Good, we’ll publish the hits. Did we get a miss? Into the bin,’” he explains. “It really undermines the credibility of the field as a whole.”
Mitchell isn’t a lone skeptic, either. John Greally, Director of the Center for Epigenomics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, has called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans an “attractive but poorly-founded idea” and criticized studies in the field for being “uninterpretable.” “I’d like to see us be more bold and brave and move from preliminary association studies to definitive studies,” he told Science, “and be open to the idea that there may be nothing there.”
That’s the exact conclusion Mitchell has reached. “When you look into the data, there’s nothing there at all,” he says. “Some critics look at the published data and argue that the effects aren’t so large or long-lasting as to be really meaningful. I’d go further and say there are no real effects there to discuss at all. I don’t see any convincing evidence that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance occurs in mammals, especially not in humans.”
You can begin to see the myriad problems, then, with claims on social media that humans can inherit “pain” or a “need for therapy” from their ancestors. “It’s pretty clear that epigenetics aren’t the dominant contributor to diseases like diabetes or to things like anxiety or depression,” Rando says. “People shouldn’t feel doomed by the fact that their parents came out of civil wars.” These interpretations also jump to the conclusion that inherited effects will be negative. “One assumption people seem to make when extrapolating from mouse studies is that, if your human ancestors were stressed, you’ll have a baseline of stress and anxiety,” Rando says. “But it may be the case that if your ancestors were stressed, you’re more likely to be resilient.”
On social media, you not only encounter claims that descendants inherit thoughts, memories and pain from their ancestors, but “epigenetics” is also seized on to explain phenomena as complex as personality disorders, bigoted attitudes and targeted violence. “If we can inherit trauma from our ancestors, it also stands to reason that white people can inherit sociopathy and a tendency towards violence against others,” read one tweet that racked up more than 15,000 likes before it was deleted; another user came to Nick Cannon’s defense by saying “epigenetics dictates that trauma can be passed down through generations; therefore, it is not far-fetched that oppressive behavior can also be passed down through generations of white families.” (Cannon had recently been fired for calling Jews and white people “savages” with a “deficiency” that causes them to be violent.)The idea that “epigenetics” means you could inherit something as complex as sociopathy or a belief in white supremacy “doesn’t really track,” Rando says, and Bale says the logic here is a “big leap.” Mitchell dismisses these interpretations much more strongly: “It’s just so simplistic and naive and so reductionist, the idea that incredibly complex socio-historical phenomena can be reduced to a few chemical marks on our DNA,” he says, adding that whether a group of people become colonized or colonizers, slaves or slave owners, depends on a historical “accumulation of accidents,” not biology. “They’re just different trajectories that different cultures went down, where it’s the cumulative cultural history that’s important,” he continues. “There’s no indication that there’s underlying biological differences between those sets of people that set them down those trajectories.”
These interpretations aren’t just wrong, he says, but trivializing: “There are really long-lasting socio-cultural effects of those historical trajectories — of whether you were colonized or not — and to me it trivializes it to reach for reductive biological explanations, for which there is no evidence.”Why, then, have people seized on “epigenetics” to explain everything from their own neuroses to white supremacy?

There are all sorts of answers to this question, many of which Mitchell discusses on his blog, but the public has certainly had some encouragement from “experts.” For example, in 2015, Deepak Chopra and Rudolph E. Tanzi, a doctor of medicine and Professor of Neurology respectively, published a book with the central claim that “you are the user and controller of your genes, the author of your biological story.” By 2017, Mark Wolynn, “a leading expert on inherited family trauma,” was confidently claiming that “the latest epigenetic research tells us […] we biologically inherit fears, anxieties and obsessive thoughts from our parents and grandparents.” It’s easy to see how someone might be persuaded by these ideas, especially if they’re also reading headline after headline in publications like ABC Science and Discover Magazine that suggest epigenetics really does herald a new scientific paradigm.
These ideas can also have a strong emotional resonance: As anyone at the end of a long line of traumatized people knows, the resulting problems can seem so deep and intractable it’s like they really do live in your bones and blood. And of course, the effects of trauma and abuse do ripple out through the ages, and breaking the cycle is no small task. Virtually no one disagrees about this.
But we don’t need to appeal to epigenetics to make this point. “There’s tons of evidence that trauma in one generation can affect the next generation, but just through psychological mechanisms,” Mitchell says. “There’s no need to invoke these really complicated molecular mechanisms. It just doesn’t add anything to the story, and there’s no real evidence for it.”
“The intergenerational effects of trauma are very real,” Bale concurs, “but there’s no magical memory of it in our DNA.”
How is that a new thing? Inherited victimism has been fashionable for many decades.
How is that a new thing? Inherited victimism has been fashionable for many decades.

but now they are saying that its genetic. It's real (unlike gender)

I do believe that the body will make changes and if under enough stress for long enough time there are physical changes. Evolution comes to mind but i do not think you can "feel the pain of your ancestors" through your genes.

Environmental factors can have an affect on genetics other than natural selection. One of the factors is stress, like from being enslaved (possibly).


It has long been theorized that stress affected the behavior of children. Twin studies and adoptions and single-blind and all that. But that's correlation, not causation.

We know epigenetic change happens.

We know that stress in parents can be inherited, without contact with the parent.

But it's not proven that stress causes 'PTSD" in offspring, although that's suggested by a few studies that have been reprinted ENDLESSLY the last 20 years.

And it will never be proven that a particular stress has created a stress-response in the offspring.

Then there is the "Temporal Loop" problem or the time-travel paradox of it: If say Jews are traumatized by the Holocaust past 7 generations, and the Germans have to keep paying Israel past 7 generations, then Israel also has to pay American soldiers for 7 generations. That's because combat definitely causes PTSD, it's better documented than nearly any other environmental pathology in existence.

So if America never had any pogroms (we didn't) and we freed the Jews from Nazis, then the Jews owe us forever.

Same for african-americans. If blacks were freed by the death of 322,000 white Union soldiers and the catastrophic injuries of 500,000 of them, and the catastrophic psychic damage of 2 millions of them, then Blacks owe Whites big for the Civil War.

So I say, let the Reparations proceed. ALL of my grandfathers/great uncles except ONE fought in WWII, and he was too young to join even then. Like 13. So I have big bank coming from Israel.

Also China. The US got into it with Japan by an embargo on airplane parts in 1938, which resulted in the final Oil Embargo, which resulted in Pearl Harbor. Since the Japanese were in the process of successfully subjugating and enslaving the Chinese, and were interrupted by the world's largest economy in the process, that means all Chinese owe all Americans who had ancestors alive during WWII.

The Russians also owe us, as do many, many other people that American soldiers fought and died for.
I think this might fit here


REPORT: Arizona Education Department Provides ‘Equity Toolkit’ That Shows Racism Starts At 3 Months Old


(Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
March 02, 20214:12 PM ET
The Arizona Department of Education reportedly created an “equity toolkit” that includes an infographic that shows how racism develops in children as young as three-months old, and recommended readings that suggest that white people are “ignorant, color-blind, and racist,” Discovery Institute scholar Christopher Rufo reported.

The toolkit shows a spectrum of children from birth to ages over six, with the title “They’re not too young to talk about race!” It cites a study that shows at birth, “babies look equally at faces of all races. At 3 months, babies look more at faces that match the race of their caregivers.”

By 30 months old, children use race to choose playmates, and at ages 4 and 5, “expressions of racial prejudice often peak.”

“By five, Black and Latinx children in research settings show no preference toward their own groups compared to Whites; White children at this age remain strongly biased in favor of whiteness,” the graphic says, citing a 2008 study.

The document encourages adults to talk to children about race instead of letting children “draw their own conclusions based on what they see.”

“Silence about race reinforces racism,” the document says.

Specifically, white parents are urged to address “anti-racism” with their children before they can even speak, or their children will learn racism “from the world around them,” a document entitled “How White Parents Can Talk To Their Kids About Race” explains. Parents are encouraged to demonstrate “anti-racist” attitudes with children within months of their birth.

Another recommended reading, entitled “What White Children Need to Know About Race,” says white students can “change racism” by “seeing themselves in a larger radicalized context” that precludes them from experiencing disadvantages that people of color face, Rufo reported.

The document also cites a book by Beverly Daniel Tatum that says there are “only three ways to be white: ignorant, color-blind, and racist.” Because these options may prevent people from wanting to identify as white, there need to be an “antiracist white identity.”

I've heard this before, and I agree its mostly bullshit.,. but theoretically it could be true??

I first heard of this like in the early 90s.. I had doctors told me that if I kept getting concussions, I might pass the effect on to my kids.. the first time I heard it, I thought it was a joke.. the second time I heard, I started wondering... I mean doctors say lots of bullshit, like about my smoking even tho I have COPD..
okay a tangent.. some people believe that mental health problems are passed down genetically.. some people think it depends on how you grew up and what you experienced.. some people think its both.. and some go a different route..

I really think this will never be proved for at least 100 years..

but it sounds sorta similar to this other debate..
okay a tangent.. some people believe that mental health problems are passed down genetically.. some people think it depends on how you grew up and what you experienced.. some people think its both.. and some go a different route..

I really think this will never be proved for at least 100 years..

but it sounds sorta similar to this other debate..

I have an adopted cousin finally found his birth mom turned she was schizophrenic psychopath, he is too. If he goes off his meds he thinks he is an FBI or CIA agent and heads to airport to go to DC to work some important case. It has had it's momnets like when he asked my nephew to take him to the airport in Denver, EJ called mom to ask her what to do, she told him it was okay it was a planned trip to Phoenix. Now he is living in Brazil with his wife, she keeps him on the straight and narrow
like I say often, I worked at the Austin state hospital as a Texas Certified Peer Support Specialist..

since I had the worst problems in the team, i tended to work with the most messed up patients

trust me, ya'lls stories wouldnt even begin to compare to some of the stuff I've dealt with
Ok but actual science has not found any if this to be true. Schizophrenia is a recognized disorder. What OP posted is not.
Since there is very little racism in reality ( I didn't write none), they are creating shit and forcing it down everyone's throats to further divide us.
It seems obvious to me.
Top Back Refresh