[Days of Broken Arrows]

In a rare instance of honest reporting, NPR has come out today with an article saying that when children are born with gene disorders, it's the age of the mother, not her egg itself, that is to blame.

Quote:
"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

OK, so the eggs remain the same. Then what's the problem?

"Whatever the causes, the maternal age effect is undeniable. "The rate of chromosomal abnormality appears to be hard-wired into our species," says Hassold. "The only thing that moves the dial is maternal age.""

I want to also throw in that studies have also shown having an older father ups the risk of mental illness in offspring.

All of which means the feminist push to marry and have kids later is a disaster on both fronts: mom getting older and mom mating with an older guy. The young and fertile were meant to spawn -- something everyone instinctively knows, but we now need "studies" to prove. What's that about women lacking natural wisdom? Hell, most people who are victims of our "educational" system have the wisdom beaten out of them.

I don't usually provide links to Blue Pill media, but in this case it's worth giving props to NPR because maybe they'll do more and leave their pretty lies behind. Plus, it'll be fun to annoy the usual clueless commenters ("My mom was older and I turned out fine!").

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/...t=20140707

[Cr33pin]

What age is considered "Older" that can lead to these disorders?

[TravelerKai]

(07-08-2014 09:54 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

In a rare instance of honest reporting, NPR has come out today with an article saying that when children are born with gene disorders, it's the age of the mother, not her egg itself, that is to blame.

Quote:
"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

OK, so the eggs remain the same. Then what's the problem?

"Whatever the causes, the maternal age effect is undeniable. "The rate of chromosomal abnormality appears to be hard-wired into our species," says Hassold. "The only thing that moves the dial is maternal age.""

I want to also throw in that studies have also shown having an older father ups the risk of mental illness in offspring.

All of which means the feminist push to marry and have kids later is a disaster on both fronts: mom getting older and mom mating with an older guy. The young and fertile were meant to spawn -- something everyone instinctively knows, but we now need "studies" to prove. What's that about women lacking natural wisdom? Hell, most people who are victims of our "educational" system have the wisdom beaten out of them.

I don't usually provide links to Blue Pill media, but in this case it's worth giving props to NPR because maybe they'll do more and leave their pretty lies behind. Plus, it'll be fun to annoy the usual clueless commenters ("My mom was older and I turned out fine!").

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/...t=20140707

In that link to the NYT article about the older fathers, I would like to know what the average or mean age of the mothers that gave birth to those children that had those mental problems and also correlate whether or not the mother's themselves had the condition in their family history. Kind of alot to ask for, but those findings created way more questions and pretty much contributed to a weak hypothesis, in my opinion.

[Bobco]

I call bull shit on the older male sperm being a problem. A mans sperm must compete with other sperm to impregnate the egg.

[Dr. Howard]

interesting, so you could take an old lady's egg and gestate it in an 18 year old and it would come out fine? Thats some handmaid's tale potential right there.

[Truth Teller]

This has been known for years. Older women are more likely to give birth to children with Down's Syndrome.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Regarding older men, there are supposed mutations in sperm that occur. I remember reading about this a long time ago, so if it's not true it's a falsehood circulating for a long time.

According to a WebMD article on older fathers creating more biploar kids:
"The fact that paternal age appears to be a more important risk factor for bipolar disorder than maternal age suggests that genetic mutations in sperm may be to blame, Frans says.

Men add more mutations to the gene pool than women because their reproductive cells continue to divide throughout their lives. Women have only about 23 divisions in the cells that produce their eggs, and these divisions occur before birth, the researchers note."

http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/ne...older-dads

[MdWanderer]

(07-08-2014 03:08 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

This has been known for years. Older women are more likely to give birth to children with Down's Syndrome.

I've noticed Sarah Palin ' s youngest child she birthed at 44 years old (who was born in 2008 during the heat of her campaign for VP with McCain) has Downs Syndrome.

[Cattle Rustler]

I nutted inside a cougar a couple times yesterday.

Not sure if I sound shrug it off as her biological clock could have expired or worry. I'll just buy a fake identify just in case

[Troll King]

What portion of older fathers are reproducing at an older age due to having a mental illness? I can easily imagine, and I think I have maybe seen it a few times but it is hard to know a coworkers past and I don't have omnipresence, a guy with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or autism self-medicating with alcohol and drugs during his 20s and 30s while living a some what reclusive life, or being in and out of rehab centers and/or not being diagnosed, who then gets his shit together, at least somewhat, and manages to beta up a soon to be 35 year old wall victim in his 40s and popping out a kid or two.

This would create the same thing found in studies but wouldn't necessarily mean that it is due to age but rather that these inheritable conditions were present and were what offset the mans reproductive ability.

Men have sperm. We create millions per day. Each sperm comes from a cell in the testes and we were born with these cells. I don't think we shed them, like we do with skin cells, but I could be wrong. Each time one of these cells is activated it creates four sperm. Assuming you are not castrated or don't contract some health issue that impairs this function, you will be able to produce sperm well into your old age.

[Rutting Elephant]

(07-08-2014 03:11 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

According to a WebMD article on older fathers creating more biploar kids:
"The fact that paternal age appears to be a more important risk factor for bipolar disorder than maternal age suggests that genetic mutations in sperm may be to blame, Frans says.

Or kids become bipolar at a higher rate because their dads are really fucking old which tends to correlate to being raised by a grumpy asshole in his full-of-blue-pill-regret twilight years.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

It is true that men suffer a significantly higher rate of defective offspring, even when modified for age of female partner. However, this needs to be put into perspective.

Here is a picture from a Croatian blog which juxtaposed the risk of down's syndrome by mother's age (black line) with the risk of autism, diabetes and schizophrenia by father's age (red line).



Conclusion: While the male +30% or even +70% higher risk is significant, it does in no way compare to a 30 000% increase that women experience.

[Jack198]

(07-08-2014 09:54 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

In a rare instance of honest reporting, NPR has come out today with an article saying that when children are born with gene disorders, it's the age of the mother, not her egg itself, that is to blame.

Quote:
"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

OK, so the eggs remain the same. Then what's the problem?

"Whatever the causes, the maternal age effect is undeniable. "The rate of chromosomal abnormality appears to be hard-wired into our species," says Hassold. "The only thing that moves the dial is maternal age.""

I want to also throw in that studies have also shown having an older father ups the risk of mental illness in offspring.

All of which means the feminist push to marry and have kids later is a disaster on both fronts: mom getting older and mom mating with an older guy. The young and fertile were meant to spawn -- something everyone instinctively knows, but we now need "studies" to prove. What's that about women lacking natural wisdom? Hell, most people who are victims of our "educational" system have the wisdom beaten out of them.

I don't usually provide links to Blue Pill media, but in this case it's worth giving props to NPR because maybe they'll do more and leave their pretty lies behind. Plus, it'll be fun to annoy the usual clueless commenters ("My mom was older and I turned out fine!").

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/...t=20140707

Yeah, honest reporting is pretty rare on NPR - wonder what the occasion is? Has to be linked to some push for more federal money to a related cause.

I've heard similar reports caterwauling about mental illness in kids as a result of older fathers, they usually refer to autism (which is another catch-all category that seems to keep growing whenever convenient, but I digress).

A closer look reveals that yes, autism rates doubled - yes, doubled, I tell you! - when older fathers had kids!

The fine print said sure, it doubled - from about 1% chance to 2%. Not exactly the same risks for older dads as for older women, but that's what we're being sold.

[Jack198]

(10-30-2014 06:01 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

I nutted inside a cougar a couple times yesterday.

Not sure if I sound shrug it off as her biological clock could have expired or worry. I'll just buy a fake identify just in case

What's her income level? If it's high enough, then:

Not (thrust) - my (thust) - problem (bust!)

But you'd still be better off if she didn't have any info on you, yeah.

[Samseau]

(07-08-2014 09:54 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

In a rare instance of honest reporting, NPR has come out today with an article saying that when children are born with gene disorders, it's the age of the mother, not her egg itself, that is to blame.

Quote:
"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

OK, so the eggs remain the same. Then what's the problem?

"Whatever the causes, the maternal age effect is undeniable. "The rate of chromosomal abnormality appears to be hard-wired into our species," says Hassold. "The only thing that moves the dial is maternal age.""

I want to also throw in that studies have also shown having an older father ups the risk of mental illness in offspring.

All of which means the feminist push to marry and have kids later is a disaster on both fronts: mom getting older and mom mating with an older guy. The young and fertile were meant to spawn -- something everyone instinctively knows, but we now need "studies" to prove. What's that about women lacking natural wisdom? Hell, most people who are victims of our "educational" system have the wisdom beaten out of them.

I don't usually provide links to Blue Pill media, but in this case it's worth giving props to NPR because maybe they'll do more and leave their pretty lies behind. Plus, it'll be fun to annoy the usual clueless commenters ("My mom was older and I turned out fine!").

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/...t=20140707

The implications of this study are huge.

It means that all of the "freeze your eggs" science is total bullshit. If it's only the age of the mother that matters, and not the egg, then it won't matter if a woman froze her eggs at 18. When she's 40 and takes that same egg, her child still has a high likelihood of being a downy.

Feminists and career cunts wept. They tried to overcome nature but nature doesn't give a fuck about old women.

This means that no amount of science, save test-tube babies, is going to stave off the coming population collapse (especially of the white population) because of the huge number of spinster bitches putting career before family.

"You can have it all!" - Hahahaha, jokes on you bitches. In the future, when there are tons of old ladies with no husbands or families, who have no social security to collect (because it's bankrupt), or pensions (because it's been robbed), people will probably just stuff these old hags into ever crowded old-people homes. These old-people homes will basically be death-sentences. They will be terribly understaffed. Living conditions will resemble concentration camps.

Meanwhile, those who had big families will be able to rely on their children for support and live out their last years in peace. Some sort of karmic justice here.

[tarquin]

I believe that the above understanding of the information is incorrect.

According to the NPR article, they found no difference in the cross-over proteins between eggs in fetuses of different ages. They harvested eggs from fetuses of different gestation periods and compared amounts of crossover proteins. The study found that if the egg is made first or last there is no difference in the initial amount of crossover proteins.

This does not mean that freezing eggs at 18 years old will have no effect on down syndrome. Unless there is degradation caused by freezing/thawing, the exact opposite will occur. An egg frozen at 18 years old is better than a 40 year old egg.

The age of the woman matters, but because the eggs degrade with age. This study shows that it is the egg's age, not something caused when the eggs are made.

[Kingsley Davis]

(10-31-2014 02:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 09:54 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

In a rare instance of honest reporting, NPR has come out today with an article saying that when children are born with gene disorders, it's the age of the mother, not her egg itself, that is to blame.

Quote:
"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

OK, so the eggs remain the same. Then what's the problem?

"Whatever the causes, the maternal age effect is undeniable. "The rate of chromosomal abnormality appears to be hard-wired into our species," says Hassold. "The only thing that moves the dial is maternal age.""

I want to also throw in that studies have also shown having an older father ups the risk of mental illness in offspring.

All of which means the feminist push to marry and have kids later is a disaster on both fronts: mom getting older and mom mating with an older guy. The young and fertile were meant to spawn -- something everyone instinctively knows, but we now need "studies" to prove. What's that about women lacking natural wisdom? Hell, most people who are victims of our "educational" system have the wisdom beaten out of them.

I don't usually provide links to Blue Pill media, but in this case it's worth giving props to NPR because maybe they'll do more and leave their pretty lies behind. Plus, it'll be fun to annoy the usual clueless commenters ("My mom was older and I turned out fine!").

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/...t=20140707

The implications of this study are huge.

It means that all of the "freeze your eggs" science is total bullshit. If it's only the age of the mother that matters, and not the egg, then it won't matter if a woman froze her eggs at 18. When she's 40 and takes that same egg, her child still has a high likelihood of being a downy.

Feminists and career cunts wept. They tried to overcome nature but nature doesn't give a fuck about old women.

This means that no amount of science, save test-tube babies, is going to stave off the coming population collapse (especially of the white population) because of the huge number of spinster bitches putting career before family.

"You can have it all!" - Hahahaha, jokes on you bitches. In the future, when there are tons of old ladies with no husbands or families, who have no social security to collect (because it's bankrupt), or pensions (because it's been robbed), people will probably just stuff these old hags into ever crowded old-people homes. These old-people homes will basically be death-sentences. They will be terribly understaffed. Living conditions will resemble concentration camps.

Meanwhile, those who had big families will be able to rely on their children for support and live out their last years in peace. Some sort of karmic justice here.

[Cattle Rustler]

(10-31-2014 12:12 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 06:01 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

I nutted inside a cougar a couple times yesterday.

Not sure if I sound shrug it off as her biological clock could have expired or worry. I'll just buy a fake identify just in case

What's her income level? If it's high enough, then:

Not (thrust) - my (thust) - problem (bust!)

But you'd still be better off if she didn't have any info on you, yeah.

120K* a year working in consulting. Single, 2 bedroom apt for herself, no debt, never married and no kids.

She doesn't want kids but at this point I keep dropping "lets have kids" just to troll her. Her reaction was hilarious the first couple of times, then she caught on to my trolling.

* - my conservative estimate.

[Sonsowey]

We should strive to see the world for what it is, plainly and truly.

Increased paternal age is associated with lots of problems. ADHD and Autism sspecifically come to mind.

Believe in fairies and unicorns if you like. But the reality is older people have more mutations in their sperm and egg cells, and that these mutations are almost always harmful.

If you want a healthy happy family, earlier is better.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(10-31-2014 05:51 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

We should strive to see the world for what it is, plainly and truly.

Increased paternal age is associated with lots of problems. ADHD and Autism sspecifically come to mind.

Believe in fairies and unicorns if you like. But the reality is older people have more mutations in their sperm and egg cells, and that these mutations are almost always harmful.

If you want a healthy happy family, earlier is better.

Yep. And here is that reality, seen plainly and truly, in HCE's plot:



What about this is so hard to understand? The "old sperm" effect exists but it is tiny compared to the "old egg" effect -- so tiny as to be essentially negligible.

One of the differences is that the sperm-based mutations tend to be local -- essentially point mutations, occasional local copy number changes and so on -- whereas the egg-based mutations tend to be gross chromosomal abnormalities. You don't need to be a professional biologist to understand which of these is likely to cause more damage.

The idea that a father being old is as potentially damaging as a mother being old is just feminist propaganda and it's false. The numbers matter. There is no comparison between the huge increases in the risk of abnormalities in children born to older women and the very mild increases in the risks in children born to older men. The data is as clear-cut as it could possibly be.

[Samseau]

(10-31-2014 02:18 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

I believe that the above understanding of the information is incorrect.

According to the NPR article, they found no difference in the cross-over proteins between eggs in fetuses of different ages. They harvested eggs from fetuses of different gestation periods and compared amounts of crossover proteins. The study found that if the egg is made first or last there is no difference in the initial amount of crossover proteins.

This does not mean that freezing eggs at 18 years old will have no effect on down syndrome. Unless there is degradation caused by freezing/thawing, the exact opposite will occur. An egg frozen at 18 years old is better than a 40 year old egg.

The age of the woman matters, but because the eggs degrade with age. This study shows that it is the egg's age, not something caused when the eggs are made.

From the article:

Quote:

To find out if the egg cells that develop later are more prone to chromosomal abnormalities than those that develop first, Rowsey counted the number of crossover proteins in the egg cells of fetuses with different gestational ages.

"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

That is, the egg cells of younger fetuses had about the same number of crossover proteins as the egg cells of older fetuses. He looked at fetuses between 14 weeks and 26 weeks in gestational age.

Since the egg cells of younger fetuses and older fetuses were the same in crossover proteins, researchers infer that the age of the egg does not matter. That's why it seems far more likely that the age of the womb is the sole determinant, which means even an old woman who has a brand new egg implanted in her will not give birth to healthy offspring.

[TravelerKai]

(11-01-2014 03:49 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 02:18 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

I believe that the above understanding of the information is incorrect.

According to the NPR article, they found no difference in the cross-over proteins between eggs in fetuses of different ages. They harvested eggs from fetuses of different gestation periods and compared amounts of crossover proteins. The study found that if the egg is made first or last there is no difference in the initial amount of crossover proteins.

This does not mean that freezing eggs at 18 years old will have no effect on down syndrome. Unless there is degradation caused by freezing/thawing, the exact opposite will occur. An egg frozen at 18 years old is better than a 40 year old egg.

The age of the woman matters, but because the eggs degrade with age. This study shows that it is the egg's age, not something caused when the eggs are made.

From the article:

Quote:

To find out if the egg cells that develop later are more prone to chromosomal abnormalities than those that develop first, Rowsey counted the number of crossover proteins in the egg cells of fetuses with different gestational ages.

"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

That is, the egg cells of younger fetuses had about the same number of crossover proteins as the egg cells of older fetuses. He looked at fetuses between 14 weeks and 26 weeks in gestational age.

Since the egg cells of younger fetuses and older fetuses were the same in crossover proteins, researchers infer that the age of the egg does not matter. That's why it seems far more likely that the age of the womb is the sole determinant, which means even an old woman who has a brand new egg implanted in her will not give birth to healthy offspring.

I guess this will make way for that stuff Nemencine posted about. Those incubator things that women can grow babies in without ever having to carry the baby.

You know as "advanced" science keeps getting, the more we try to play God, the more it backfires.

I bet an incubator baby will have strange issues that normal ones won't. For example, babies tend to get calmer when rocked in a rocking chair, riding in a car, or being carried. Why? Because the mom while pregnant was walking around, having sex with daddy, driving/riding in the car/train/plane/etc.. The baby feels at ease because it reminds them of being in the mom's womb. Can you imagine trying to calm a screaming baby down without a rocking chair or motion trick?

So how can "science" duplicate all these kinds of things in an incubator pod? Put them in a motion swing? The first batches of kids coming out of these things are going to be weird or defective. They cannot anticipate every side effect that will affect
what should be normal human behavior on a physical level in a 100% synthetic way.

[tarquin]

(11-01-2014 03:49 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 02:18 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

I believe that the above understanding of the information is incorrect.

According to the NPR article, they found no difference in the cross-over proteins between eggs in fetuses of different ages. They harvested eggs from fetuses of different gestation periods and compared amounts of crossover proteins. The study found that if the egg is made first or last there is no difference in the initial amount of crossover proteins.

This does not mean that freezing eggs at 18 years old will have no effect on down syndrome. Unless there is degradation caused by freezing/thawing, the exact opposite will occur. An egg frozen at 18 years old is better than a 40 year old egg.

The age of the woman matters, but because the eggs degrade with age. This study shows that it is the egg's age, not something caused when the eggs are made.

From the article:

Quote:

To find out if the egg cells that develop later are more prone to chromosomal abnormalities than those that develop first, Rowsey counted the number of crossover proteins in the egg cells of fetuses with different gestational ages.

"We saw that there is an extraordinary amount of variation between eggs, and between females," he says, "but they do not vary by time."

That is, the egg cells of younger fetuses had about the same number of crossover proteins as the egg cells of older fetuses. He looked at fetuses between 14 weeks and 26 weeks in gestational age.

Since the egg cells of younger fetuses and older fetuses were the same in crossover proteins, researchers infer that the age of the egg does not matter. That's why it seems far more likely that the age of the womb is the sole determinant, which means even an old woman who has a brand new egg implanted in her will not give birth to healthy offspring.

Scientists infer that the eggs that develop earlier or later have no difference in crossover proteins. This was the purpose of the experiment. From the portion you quoted, this is clear. It is not true that the experiment found, in the broad terms that you use, that "the age of the egg does not matter." What they found was that there are no differences in eggs in fetuses which were developed at different times in the gestational process.

The article continues to state:

Quote:

It's more likely that there's no one maternal-age effect on eggs, Rowsey says. "There are many different factors that come into play, and we have to explain them all."

The proteins that bind chromosomes together may degrade over the years that the egg is waiting in a woman's ovary, Rowsey says. The number of eggs that women have is also depleted over time, so there might be fewer good ones to choose from.

All this study did was eliminate the order in which eggs are created during gestation as a cause of later chromosomal abnormalities, at least as far as crossover proteins are concerned.

Here is another article covering the same thing:

http://consumer.healthday.com/infertilit...89512.html

Quote:

For almost five decades, it's been widely believed that the first eggs produced in a female's fetal stage have better connections between chromosomes. These connections are known as chromosome crossovers. This idea is known as the "Production-Line Hypothesis."

However, scientists at Washington State University (WSU) found that eggs produced early in the fetal stage are no different from those produced later.

"If the production-line hypothesis was true, you'd expect lots of abnormal cells and you would expect them all to be happening late," said the study's author, Ross Rowsey, a doctoral candidate in WSU's Center for Reproductive Biology in a university news release. "We do see a pretty high incidence of abnormal cells, but they're just as likely to be happening early as late."

Again, the study showed that, as far as crossover proteins are concerned, the order the egg was created is not a factor in chromosomal abnormalities.

The AGE of the egg is important, but not the order in which it was created during gestation.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(11-01-2014 09:52 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

You know as "advanced" science keeps getting, the more we try to play God, the more it backfires.

It's interesting that you can know such a thing.

Look around you. We are living the longest, healthiest and most comfortable lives of any human beings that have ever walked the earth. We have access to completely unprecedented and unimaginable even a short time ago amounts of knowledge, information, entertainment, etc. We can instantaneously communicate with people we haven't even met (but sometimes know very well indeed) in any corner of the earth, and even outside the earth if necessary. Your own post is an example of that.

All of these things are, obviously, the result of the advances of science and technology and of human beings "playing God" ever more successfully.

It should be interesting that in the face of such an overwhelming reality, you -- and many others, almost everyone in fact -- are so wholly, and almost ineluctably, persuaded of the idea that the more advances we make the more it will "backfire". Not merely that "backfiring" is a possibility that can be entertained since no one knows the future -- no, that it is the one thing that is more certain than any other.

It is worth asking oneself the question: where, in the face of the overwhelming reality of ever-continuing progress and improvement, does this absolute certainty of impending doom come from? What are its real sources?