Category: scientific malpractice

Moralistic Fallacy on Ancestry Testing

Responding to an unmitigated idiot.

This may be the most scientifically illiterate piece on genetics I have ever read.

What worries me most, however, is that companies offering personal genetic testing customarily seem to report back to those sending along a sample of their spit that they are a mix of different “ethnicities.” This is more than simply statistical nonsense. I fear doing this can also be dangerous. Claiming that it is possible to map ancestry in this fashion may be giving discredited old ideas about ethnicity and race new visibility.

This is the moralistic fallacyIt would be a bad thing, very worrisome, if genetic tests can detect ethnic and racial differences; therefore, they cannot detect them.  This guy is either retarded or mendacious.

{snip} Despite the wars, border tensions, and other types of violence that stem from perceptions of human difference, we are approximately 99.9 percent identical to every other human on Earth in terms of our genetics. 

How much do we share with chimps (albeit some more than others, eh)?

In short, we are all cousins. 


Even when you drill into the specifics of the remaining 0.1 percent to learn something more detailed about your biological ties, don’t get your hopes up that you can identify real ancestors very far back in time.

That’s an absolute lie.  Even with the flaws of these tests, they CAN and DO tell you what your majority ancestry is.  How come an Irishman will test out as Irish and not Pakistani?

Here’s the basic math. We inherit roughly half our genes from our mothers and half from our fathers. If one or both of them should be unknown to you, it is a safe bet gene profiling may help you track them down. But how far back across the generations can you go and have similarly assured success? Go back, say, five more generations to your great, great, great, great grandparents. Assuming there hasn’t been a lot of inbreeding in your ancestry (the further you go back in time, by the way, the more likely it occurred), you should have 64 of them. Only about 1.56 percent of your genes may come down to you from any one of these 64 ancestors. Good luck should you go looking for them many generations back—or their living descendants.

See below.  This “argument” is completely irrelevant in evaluating ancestral sources that have made a significant contribution to your genome.  Yes, possibly, that single “Indian princess” from centuries ago may not show up, she will be lost in the meiotic shuffle.  But no one is going to mistake a Dane for a Japanese, and that’s what this idiot is really worried about.

Now go even further back in time to the 17th or 18th century. The number of folks on average living then who could have contributed to your genetic endowment is so large (more than 1,000), and their possible genetic contribution so small (about 0.098 percent for 10 generations back), it would be smoke and mirrors to assert claims about who they were in person. In fact, most of these people left no trace of themselves in your genome.

So what?  The tests are not looking for particular ancestors.  They are evaluating a person’s genome and ascertaining what the ethnic mix represented in that genome (as it is) is.  Trace ancestry may be lost, but the major components will be present; obviously, some ancestors will be – must be – represented in your genome (or else you wouldn’t exist), and it is proportionately likely that what is represented will derive from those ancestors that make up the bulk of your genealogy.  If 50% of your ancestors were French and 2% were Chinese (and 48% something else), the Chinese ancestry may or may not be detected – the luck of the meiotic draw – but you can rest assured that a substantial amount detected (but obviously not precisely 50% of course) will be French (or whatever level of specificity a given test reads French as).

In short, while it can be hard to get your head around the statistics involved, go back more than a few thousand years and you are genealogically related to almost everyone on Earth. 

That’s true and why Der Movement’s ranting about “purity” is nonsense.  But – BUT! – you are going to be much more related, and more recently related – more recent common ancestors – with some groups than others.  Germans are going to have most, or all, of their most recent common ancestors with other Europeans, particularly Northcentral Europeans, and Nigerians will in turn share such ancestors with sub-Saharan Africans, mostly West Africans.  Sure, if you go back far enough, Germans and Nigerians will share ancestors.  If you go back even farther, both groups will share ancestors with mice and groundhogs.  People take ancestry tests to ascertain their ancestry in the sense that they differ from others; they want to know what makes them unique.  And that’s the level the tests, correctly, evaluate.  They are looking for your ethnic and racial family, and they WILL identify the major components of that.

Genetically speaking, however, very few of these very distant ancestors contributed something of themselves biologically to your genome.

Yes, but you are getting a representative sample, you mendacious dumbfuck.  When an American polling company performs a political survey, they do not poll every single American citizen.  They take a representative sample.  Think of a genetic test as taking a representative sample of your ancestral background.  There will be some statistical error, some noise, but if performed correctly, the “poll” of your genome will correctly ascertain –within reason – the likelihood of your ancestral mix.

As an example of the power of this representative genetic survey, it is possible to detect Neanderthal gene variants in modern Eurasians.  So, yes, if you are of European or Asian descent, that small and prehistoric fraction of your genome derived from Neanderthals can be identified.  And yet this low-life shitheel pretends we can’t distinguish a Swede from an Angolan – that it’s “nonsense” to estimate ancestral proportions derived from extant ethnic groups.  Really now, isn’t it time to call out bullshit when you read or hear it?

Of course, the reason why this turd is so hysterical is that the tests actually WORK, in the broad fundamentals.  Yes, I am critical of these tests and how they are over-interpreted, and how they ignore kinship metrics.  But those are details – important details, but still details.  While I would be suspicious about ancestral proportions less than 10%, and certainly less than 5% (and less than 1% is a bad joke), when it comes to majority ancestry, the tests are on target.  Don’t believe that?  Put it to the test (no pun intended).  If you know your own background, get tested.  If your friends know their background, get them tested as well.  Then observe how well the tests detect the bulk of your ancestry, and know that the deniers are lying to you.

By the way, all of this moron’s arguments would apply to the field of population genetics, you know, all those peer-reviewed studies that can distinguish race with close to 100% accuracy, distinguish German-, French-, and Italian-speaking Swiss, and identify people who are even just ¼ Jewish.  

What a despicable piece of lying filth this scumbag is.

Behold the Female: Theranos Update, 9/6/16

Pussy pedestalization in business.

Bizarre story; excerpts, emphasis added:

…Elizabeth Holmes realized that she had no other choice. She finally had to address her employees at Theranos, the blood-testing start-up that she had founded as a 19-year-old Stanford dropout, which was now valued at some $9 billion. Two days earlier, a damning report published in The Wall Street Journal had alleged that the company was, in effect, a sham—that its vaunted core technology was actually faulty and that Theranos administered almost all of its blood tests using competitors’ equipment. 

There was also an uncomfortable chill in the room. At Theranos, Holmes preferred that the temperature be maintained in the mid-60s, which facilitated her preferred daily uniform of a black turtleneck with a puffy black vest…. 

One of the only journalists who seemed unimpressed by this narrative was John Carreyrou, a recalcitrant health-care reporter from The Wall Street Journal. Carreyrou came away from The New Yorker story surprised by Theranos’s secrecy—such behavior was to be expected at a tech company but not a medical operation. Moreover, he was also struck by Holmes’s limited ability to explain how it all worked. When The New Yorker reporter asked about Theranos’s technology, she responded, somewhat cryptically, “a chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel.” 

But no scientist could credibly vouch for Theranos. Under Holmes’s direction, the secretive company had barred other scientists from writing peer-review papers on its technology. 

Absent a plan, Holmes embarked on a familiar course—she doubled down on her narrative. She left the war room for her car—she is often surrounded by her security detail, which sometimes numbers as many as four men, who (for safety reasons) refer to the young C.E.O. as “Eagle 1”—and headed to the airport. (She has been known to fly alone on a $6.5 million Gulfstream G150.) 

Holmes, who talks slowly and deliberately, and blinks with alarming irregularity, replied with a variation of a line from Jobs. “This is what happens when you work to change things,” she said, her long blond hair tousled, her smile amplified by red lipstick. “First they think you’re crazy, then they fight you, and then, all of a sudden, you change the world.” When Cramer asked Holmes for a terse true-or-false answer about an accusation in the article, she replied with a meandering 198-word retort. 

When Elizabeth Holmes emerged on the tech scene, around 2003, she had a preternaturally good story. She was a woman. 

…she approached several of her professors at Stanford, according to someone who knew Holmes back then. But most explained to the chemical-engineering major that it was virtually impossible to do so with any real efficacy. “I told her, I don’t think your idea is going to work,” Phyllis Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford, said to me, about Holmes’s seminal pitch for Theranos. As Gardner explained, it is impossible to get  precise result from the tip of a finger for most of the tests that Theranos would claim to conduct accurately. 

She took the money on the condition that she would not divulge to investors how her technology actually worked, and that she had final say and control over every aspect of her company. This surreptitiousness scared off some investors. When Google Ventures, which focuses more than 40 percent of its investments on medical technology, tried to perform due diligence on Theranos to weigh an investment, Theranos never responded.

Eventually, Google Ventures sent a venture capitalist to a Theranos Walgreens Wellness Center to take the revolutionary pinprick blood test. As the V.C. sat in a chair and had several large vials of blood drawn from his arm, far more than a pinprick, it became apparent that something was amiss with Theranos’s promise. 

Later that evening, gripped and overwhelmed with worry, Ian Gibbons tried to commit suicide. He was rushed to the hospital. A week later, with his wife by his side, Ian Gibbons died. 

When Rochelle called Holmes’s office to explain what had happened, the secretary was devastated and offered her sincere condolences. She told Rochelle Gibbons that she would let Holmes know immediately. But a few hours later, rather than a condolence message from Holmes, Rochelle instead received a phone call from someone at Theranos demanding that she immediately return any and all confidential Theranos property. 

Holmes had a single enforcer: Sunny Balwani, the company’s president and chief operating officer, until he stepped down in May. Balwani, who had previously worked at Lotus and Microsoft, had no experience in medicine. He was hired in 2009 to focus on e-commerce. Nevertheless, he was soon put in charge of the company’s most secret medical technology. 

According to a number of people with knowledge of the situation, the two had met years before he began at the company, when Holmes took a trip to China after she graduated from high school. The two eventually started dating, numerous people told me, and remained very loyal even after their relationship ended. Among Holmes’s security detail, Balwani was known as “Eagle 2.” 

As Holmes started to assemble her board of directors, she chose a dozen older white men, almost none of whom had a background in anything related to health care. This included former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state George Shultz, former Georgia senator and chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, and William J. Perry, the former defense secretary. (Bill Frist, the former Senate majority leader, and former cardiovascular doctor, was an exception.) “This was a board that was better suited to decide if America should invade Iraq than vet a blood-testing company,” one person said to me. Gibbons told his wife that Holmes commanded their attention masterfully. 

C.M.S. also soon discovered that some of the tests Theranos was performing were so inaccurate that they could leave patients at risk of internal bleeding, or of stroke among those prone to blood clots. The agency found that Theranos appeared to ignore erratic results from its own quality-control checks during a six-month period last year and supplied 81 patients with questionable test results. 

Forbes, clearly embarrassed by its cover story, removed Holmes from its list of “America’s Richest Self-Made Women.” A year earlier, it had estimated her wealth at $4.5 billion.

“Today, Forbes is lowering our estimate of her net worth to nothing,” the editors wrote. 

Holmes may not be prepared to compartmentalize what comes next. When I arrived in Palo Alto in July, I wasn’t the only person setting out to interview anyone associated with Theranos and Holmes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was, too. When I knocked on a door, I was only a day or two behind F.B.I. agents who were trying to put together a time line of what Holmes knew and when she knew it—adding the most unpredictable twist to a story she could no longer control.

When pondering all of this, keep in mind that (1) Holmes is at the far right edge of the female bell curve for intelligence and competence, and (2) the gamesters tell men that they have to modulate their every word and action to appeal to ditzy female airheads,

Retraction Watch: It’s Official

Very cognitive and very elite.
I was reading more on this case, including comments by Potti’s current White supervisor in North Dakota. The White – apparently it seems worshipping at the Altar of Asia – praises Potti, and speculates that a reason for the intense interest in the case is “racial discrimination.”  Yes, sir, dem facts dey be raycis!  Anil he be a good boy, he dindu nuffin!
Also, the White claims that Potti is an excellent clinician appreciated by the patients, a view that can be contrasted to the objective metric here.  Now, many of those patients seem upset about Potti’s previous antics rather than his present behavior; nevertheless, the numbers are what they are.  After all, how comfortable will present patients be with this latest official confirmation?  Patient confidence in their physician is a major evaluative tool.

Crying Out For Help At Stanford

Attempted murder, scientific sabotage.
Hey, “Rosie” had better worry, this one looks like some “fresh meat” for “the Derb.”
Let’s see now: criminal behavior, covered up by the System. What does that sound like? Yes, the Negro! Colored is as colored does. Sorry, Derb, it’s not Black/non-Black, it’s White/non-White. A more intelligent form of Negro, indeed.
And yet schools like Stanford are full of things like this. Scientific progress marches onward!
Another reason why HBD must be mercilessly destroyed.

Anti-Bias Brainwashing

A psychometric attack against White racial interests.

“Scientists” are perfecting brainwashing techniques to make Whites “lessen bias.”

Abstract: Although people may endorse egalitarianism and tolerance, social biases can remain operative and drive harmful actions in an unconscious manner. Here, we investigated training to reduce implicit racial and gender bias. Forty participants processed counterstereotype information paired with one sound for each type of bias. Biases were reduced immediately after training. During subsequent slow-wave sleep, one sound was unobtrusively presented to each participant, repeatedly, to reactivate one type of training. Corresponding bias reductions were fortified in comparison with the social bias not externally reactivated during sleep. This advantage remained 1 week later, the magnitude of which was associated with time in slow-wave and rapid-eye-movement sleep after training. We conclude that memory reactivation during sleep enhances counterstereotype training and that maintaining a bias reduction is sleep-dependent.

Here’s a “popular” explanation of this despicably evil Pavlovian, Huxleyian, and Orwellian research.
Emphasis added:
In a computerized program, faces were paired with words that ran contrary to negative stereotypes. For instance, female faces appeared with words associated with math or science, and black faces appeared with words considered pleasant. Paller said two distinctive sounds were played during the training, one associated with the women and science pairs and the other with the black and “pleasant” pairs.
After the training, participants went to sleep. Then, without the participants’ knowledge, scientists repeatedly played one of the sounds with the volume low enough to avoid waking sleeping participants up. 
Paller said the sleep training produced results. He said bias reduction was stronger for the sleep-training group and that the changes were identified as having continued a week later. 
 Emphasis added:
In a commentary, Gordon Feld and Jan Born from the University of Tubingen praised the study saying: “This is the first to demonstrate that this method can be used to break long-lived, highly pervasive response habits deeply rooted in memory.”

But they cautioned that sleep was a vulnerable state in which people did not have “wilful consciousness”.

They added: “However, Aldous Huxley’s description of a dystopian ‘brave new world’ where young children are conditioned to certain values during sleep reminds us that this research also needs to be guided by ethical considerations.” 

Prof Paller said there were similarities to subliminal advertising and that there was an ethical discussion to be had.  

However, he continued: “More importantly, perhaps, is the question of whether people in positions of authority in society, such as judges and police officers, and perhaps people who make hiring decisions, should have their unconscious bias evaluated and perhaps trained to some standard.”

Then we have this excellent critique:

So every subject was white? How could they legitimately test the efficacy of cross-cultural bias abatement using only one cohort? That’s actually quite simple. The experiment isn’t at all about reducing a natural and beneficial concept called bias; it’s about reducing whites. Were it otherwise I quite think all of the clucking about diversity that emanates from the academy would seep into their studies. Practically every Western university has jettisoned principles of merit to accommodate a campus potpourri–and suddenly not a single student of color could be located to participate in critical bias reduction experiments?

This blogger asserts that Paller’s ancestry is reflected here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true, but I will withhold further comment on that until more information is available. I note that the first author has a Chinese surname. No experiments were done to see if this technique would lessen anti-White attitidues among Chinese. Fancy that!
From a proximate interests standpoint, maybe people would – on their own, without brainwashing – associate Blacks with “pleasantness” if that racial group was in fact pleasant, intelligent, disciplined, creative, productive, and law-abiding, instead of being unintelligent, violent, unproductive and generally useless, making the streets of America run red with their criminal proclivities.  Likewise, people may associate women with STEM achievements if in fact that was warranted, but the realty is, men are in general better in those fields. The idea – the lie – promoted by the evil genocidal filth behind this study is that their techniques allow people to “unlearn” the biases they have accumulated from (negative) influences in their lives.  Really?  The truth: the hyper-PC anti-White System (the same folks who fund this research) have been subjecting society to decades of anti-White and anti-male propaganda. In the mass media, Blacks are discriminated-against geniuses, and women are portrayed as far superior to men both intellectually and physically. What “biases” against minorities and women are being “learned” in this manner? If people have “biases” that go in the opposite direction of Paller’s sociopolitical agenda, it is because they have experienced reality, and reality is a harsh mistress indeed. What Hu and Paller want is to brainwash Whites to reject reality in favor of socially engineered fantasy.

And from the ultimate interests standpoint, this is all about disarming Whites in their competition with other groups, to make Whites unconcerned with their genetic and cultural dispossession and race replacement, while also masculinizing women and promoting non-fertile lifestyles for White females. This is, from a racial preservationist standpoint, in its ultimate outcome, the promotion of genocide.

Update: See this.

We are also experimenting with a crowdfunding project on implanting false memories during sleep…

This fellow is more dangerous than a million feral Negroes. More evidence that the ancestry mentioned above is correct.  Heritable ethnic evil…what else could it be?