A cluster of Neandarthal genes is correlated to more severe CoViD-19 symptoms and death

[BacktoCricaddict]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

 

Quote

A recent genetic association study¹ identified a gene cluster on chromosome 3 as a risk locus for respiratory failure upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. A new study² comprising 3,199 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and controls finds that this is the major genetic risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization (COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative). Here, we show that the risk is conferred by a genomic segment of ~50 kb that is inherited from Neanderthals and is carried by ~50% of people in South Asia and ~16% of people in Europe today.

 

Scientists hypothesize that these Neandarthal genes are responsible for highly responsive immune systems, which can be an advantage against other pathogens.  But the same immune system over-reacts resulting in deadly "cytokine storms" when CoViD hits.  

 

From an academic perspective, it is well-known that humans and neandarthals inter-bred (2 different species hitting it) and Neandarthal genes still persist in a number of human sub-populations.  

[nikred]

I thought Neanderthals were native to Europe and Europeans had more of Neanderthals in them. What am I missing here?

Sent from my SM-M315F using Tapatalk

[sandeep]

49 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

 

 

Scientists hypothesize that these Neandarthal genes are responsible for highly responsive immune systems, which can be an advantage against other pathogens.  But the same immune system over-reacts resulting in deadly "cytokine storms" when CoViD hits.  

 

From an academic perspective, it is well-known that humans and neandarthals inter-bred (2 different species hitting it) and Neandarthal genes still persist in a number of human sub-populations.  

Just read this a couple of hours ago, elsewhere - reportedly up to 50% of 'south asians' carry the gene cluster in question...

[Vilander]

So Europeans and East asians got the pale skin and broad bones of neanderthals while indians who otherwise don't have any neanderthal or denisovan dna have got the tiny tit bit that make them vulnerable to covid19..how very convenient hehe was this study made in wuhan too 

[Vilander]

21 minutes ago, nikred said:

I thought Neanderthals were native to Europe and Europeans had more of Neanderthals in them. What am I missing here?

Sent from my SM-M315F using Tapatalk
 

no they have the bits that make them broad bones and pale.. we have the bit that makes us die of cold basically.. according to this study ..i blame the hindooo gods..

[BacktoCricaddict]

25 minutes ago, Vilander said:

So Europeans and East asians got the pale skin and broad bones of neanderthals while indians who otherwise don't have any neanderthal or denisovan dna have got the tiny tit bit that make them vulnerable to covid19..how very convenient hehe was this study made in wuhan too 

The study was done by Swedish and German scientists not Wuhan.  The data show what the data show.   At this point, it is just a correlation and no one is claiming causation.  It may or may not hold up.  And scientists know that.  Plus, scientists know that a number of physical features (esp skin colour) are adaptations to sun exposure and not from ancient DNA.  

 

It is also important to note that the same genes are not responsible for all traits.  There is so much mixing and matching of gene clusters over millions of years that you cannot make simplistic conclusions from one paper.  But, when you approach everything from a "they are out to get me and my kin" perspective, it is hard to be objective.  

Edited October 4, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

Here's a critique of the actual science presented here.  Genetics is not black and white.  

 

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/neanderthals-and-covid-19-beyond-the-hype-c258dc8bc2c9

[BacktoCricaddict]

36 minutes ago, nikred said:

I thought Neanderthals were native to Europe and Europeans had more of Neanderthals in them. What am I missing here?

Sent from my SM-M315F using Tapatalk
 

Not true.

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/africans-carry-surprising-amount-neanderthal-dna#:~:text=The researchers then calculated the,or 0.3% of their genome.

[Vilander]

Getting lots of cold when young and eating curry apparently keeps Indians safe 

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00854/full

[Vilander]

Ya all keep muching that curry..slurp slurp..i ama go get my curry fix..  see ya 

[BacktoCricaddict]

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Getting lots of cold when young and eating curry apparently keeps Indians safe 

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00854/full

That is not what the paper is saying, but sure.

 

More to the point, all of these papers, including the OP, are hypothesis papers.  What is fascinating is that there are a multitude of factors and each is separate risk factor.  Knowing them and being able to put them in the correct context for individual patients advances biomedicine. 

 

It also advances jingoism, unfortunately.  

 

 

[Real McCoy]

Whenever I see the word "scientists" thrown about, I immediately laugh at it. You don't know how much of this "research" are false and paid for by special interest groups. Other things "science" tells us that are fake are global warming, astronots landing on the moon with a spcaecraft wrapped up with gold foil, people floating in space stations, people are born gay, etc. the list keeps going on

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

That is not what the paper is saying

Did you read it ? 

 

It says that effectively. 

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

also advances jingoism,

I can't be jingoistic abt india man not possible.

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

Did you read it ? 

 

It says that effectively. 

Yes.  All of it.  It presents 7 different hypotheses.  Hypothesis means "we don't know jack **** yet, but let's look into it."  Here's their conclusion:

 

This perspective puts forward several hypotheses which may explain individual and population susceptibility to COVID-19 which in turn, may help prioritize vaccination in high risk individuals and groups, and thus reduce morbidity and mortality across populations. Whether the above factors generate sufficient evidence to provide satisfactory explanation for their apparent protective effects on Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic, will be clear as the situation unfolds further.

[Vilander]

9 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Yes.  All of it.  It presents 7 different hypotheses.  Hypothesis means "we don't know jack **** yet, but let's look into it."  Here's their conclusion:

 

This perspective puts forward several hypotheses which may explain individual and population susceptibility to COVID-19 which in turn, may help prioritize vaccination in high risk individuals and groups, and thus reduce morbidity and mortality across populations. Whether the above factors generate sufficient evidence to provide satisfactory explanation for their apparent protective effects on Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic, will be clear as the situation unfolds further.

What are those hypothesis can you list them out. If you do you will see exposure to pathogens since childhood and eating of garlic curcumin and other herbs to be one of the many factors listed. Thats what I meant when I joked abt how these studies and papers are generally up in the air. Curry and cold basically as reasons for lesser than average case fatalities in india..

Edited October 4, 2020 by Vilander

[BacktoCricaddict]

15 minutes ago, Vilander said:

What are those hypothesis can you list them out. If you do you will see exposure to pathogens since childhood and eating of garlic curcumin and other herbs to be one of the many factors listed. Thats what I meant when I joked abt how these studies and papers are generally up in the air. Curry and cold basically as reasons for lesser than average case fatalities in india..

Yes, they are 2 out of the 7 hypotheses listed.  Here's the thing:  this paper is meant to be a hypothesis paper.  The authors say as much.  

 

How come you missed the ones about the ACE2 variation, vaccine regimen, environmental factors, and microRNAs?  These possibilities along with the cold and curry (it has a ring to it!) have been thrown around in various places.  The purpose here is just to organize all of these possibilities.  Once more data is available, better correlations emerge and confounding factors are teased out, the actual contributions of each one, if any, will emerge.   

Edited October 5, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Yes, they are 2 out of the 7 hypotheses listed.  Here's the thing:  this paper is meant to be a hypothesis paper.  The authors say as much.  

 

How come you missed the ones about the ACE2 variation, vaccine regimen, environmental factors, and microRNAs?  These possibilities along with the cold and curry (it has a ring to it!) have been thrown around in various places.  The purpose here is just to organize all of these possibilities.  Once more data is available, better correlations emerge and confounding factors are teased out, the actual contributions of each one, if any, will emerge.   

I found bcg interesting to be honest. If that and the genetic predisposition bit are true on both sides guess what American born desis are in the **** as they have genetic disposition  50 pc to get covid and dont have bcg to protect them. Double whammy but these are as you pointed hypotheses. Bcg is given to first nations people here. It throws several possibilities.

[mishra]

10 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Whenever I see the word "scientists" thrown about, I immediately laugh at it. You don't know how much of this "research" are false and paid for by special interest groups. Other things "science" tells us that are fake are global warming, astronots landing on the moon with a spcaecraft wrapped up with gold foil, people floating in space stations, people are born gay, etc. the list keeps going on

Exactly, Both below statement are true and can be scientifically  prooven. You just need to know what you want to proove.

 

1: Scientist believe that doing running/cardi makes you healthy.

 

2: Scientists believe that running/cardio has huge helth risk.

[Real McCoy]

33 minutes ago, mishra said:

Exactly, Both below statement are true and can be scientifically  prooven. You just need to know what you want to proove.

 

1: Scientist believe that doing running/cardi makes you healthy.

 

2: Scientists believe that running/cardio has huge helth risk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/well/eat/should-we-be-drinking-less.html

 

Here's another "quality research". All quotes from the same article

 

Quote

The committee said in a recent conference call that it plans to recommend that men and women who drink limit themselves to a single serving of wine, beer or liquor per day. Do not drink because you think it will make you healthier, the committee says: It won’t. And it maintains that drinking less is generally better for health than drinking more.

Quote

That message is a departure from previous guidelines, which since 1980 have defined “moderate” drinking as up to two drinks a day for men and one for women. Government agencies have also long defined a standard drink as 12 ounces of regular beer, five ounces of wine, or one and a half ounces of distilled spirits (40 percent alcohol), amounts often exceeded in Americans’ typical “drink.”

 

Quote

The 2010 guidelines mentioned that moderate drinking may even “help to keep cognitive function intact with age.”

Observe the deception here. It uses the word "may" and uses quotation marks for the health benefits. quotation marks can be used for other people's research or saying something thats dubious. These things can also prevent the article publisher from lawsuits if there's any

Quote

The scientific debate over moderate drinking dates at least back to the 1970s, when researchers in California noticed that teetotalers seemed to have more heart attacks than people who drank moderately.

 

Quote

One study that compared nondrinkers to moderate drinkers — defined as having two drinks daily for men and one for women — found that 27 out of 30 well established risk factors for heart disease were “significantly more prevalent” among nondrinkers. Rather than causing better health, in other words, moderate drinking may be a marker for higher socioeconomic status and other lifestyle factors that promote a longer life.

 

What this article is promoting is drinking but not too much since the govt doesnt want the people to die quickly. They still want them to work their jahbs and pay tax money. But they dont want these peasants to live long enough to claim their 401k and collect social security benefits. Drinking is always a bad thing. If someone want to drink, they shouldn't be looking for health benefits.