nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (08/14/85)
> Various governments (the U.S. included) have been quietly but seriously >investigating the creation of *racially-specific* microorganisms, including >viruses which will affect only persons of a specific race. I am certain that >all of you have heard of racially-specific diseases such as sickle cell >anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, etc. Think about this a minute... Frightening. Read on... > I am certain that a number of people will ask: Why is the *U. S.* >conducting research in the CBW area? Why has Congress recently approved a >program to manufacture a binary [not the digital kind...] 'nerve gas' weapon? >The answer, as far as I am concerned, is a parallel to the atomic weapon >situation: The U. S. is caught between a rock and a hard place. It must conduct >research to develop effective [if possible] countermeasures. Why should the >U.S. *produce* any CBW weapons? As a deterrent in the same manner as the >continuing production of atomic weapons. Does this really work as a deterrent? >Who knows? Apparently, the reason claimed by the military for the development of CBW weapons is *defensive*, so that we know how to defend ourselves if we are ever attacked. To do this, we must develope these agents. So we fund research into new chemical/bacteriological weapons. >| "Have you hugged your cat today?" Yes. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa "If she doesn't scream, the wedding can take place!" Doctor "Don't I have a say in the matter?" female companion "Be quiet" Doctor Which companion, what story?
halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) (08/14/85)
The author of the original article shows his paranoia, ignorance, and lack of credibility when he talks about "racial specific diseases." In particular, he mentioned sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs. Neither of these is racial specific, although they are concentrated among certain ethnic groups. Sickle cell anemia is occasionally found in non-blacks. Tay-Sachs is sometimes found among non-Jews, particularly in eastern Europeans. (I will not address the blatently anti-Semitic implied remark about Jews being a race rather than an ethnic group or religion. I will assume it was inadvertent.) In particular, the chance of a non-Jew of eastern European heritage being a Tay-Sachs carrier is about one in five hundred.
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (08/19/85)
In article <593@hou2b.UUCP> halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: >The author of the original article shows his paranoia, ignorance, >and lack of credibility when he talks about "racial specific diseases." >In particular, he mentioned sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs. Neither >of these is racial specific, although they are concentrated among certain >ethnic groups. Sickle cell anemia is occasionally found in non-blacks. >Tay-Sachs is sometimes found among non-Jews, particularly in eastern >Europeans. (I will not address the blatently anti-Semitic implied remark >about Jews being a race rather than an ethnic group or religion. I will >assume it was inadvertent.) In particular, the chance of a non-Jew of eastern >European heritage being a Tay-Sachs carrier is about one in five hundred. I`m sorry, folks, but I really gotta reply to this; it`s something I really get tired of hearing. Look, if you want to talk about just about anything, and you want to be able to make any statement at all, you have to make generalizations. Of course, non-blacks can sickle, but if you are going to talk about sickle cell disease, especially sickle cell disease in the US, then you generalize to blacks. When you talk about breast cancer, you at least implicity are talking about women (though of course, rare men get breast cancer too). When you talk about women, you talk about people with XX chromosomes (though of course, there are women with XY chromosomes - even without surgery due to testicular feminization). Whenever I make a statement about women, I don`t add the disclaimer "And, you know, by a woman I mean a person of XX genotype, though I don`t want to offend those of XY genotype who might be reading or listening to this. I would not like to imply that all I am about to say should, or could, apply to every woman in the world when I speak of an XX genotype, and I hope that no one will assume I am making any sweeping generalizations about gender identity here." The bottom line is that if a person is cut down for making any generalization, then it is simply impossible to make any statement about anything. All statements are statements of probability, and few statements can boast 100%. It is neither ignorance nor paranoia to make such statements. It only means that the speaker assumes that the listener has some basic critical faculties. It is a revelation to me to find that referring to Semitic peoples as a "race" is anti-Semitic. I think I see a chip on a shoulder here. The word race is by no means a perjorative in and of itself. I happen to belong to a number of them, and they are all fun when it comes time to party. Bill Oliver - Your basic (in order of appearance) Oklahoman-Irish-Cherokee-Welsh-Chickasaw-Seminole-Black-French, you know, U.S. of American.
halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) (08/20/85)
Re Tay-Sachs... Virtually all Tay-Sachs births in the US today are to non-Jewish parents. (Statistic from the Tay-Sachs Research Center, or whatever it's called.) Why? Those at highest risk get screening, so they do not conceive a potential TS baby. Those at lower risk do not worry themselves about it, so do not get screened. In about a generation or so, expect Tay-Sachs to be essentially erradicated among Jews, but prevalent among others. Re Jewish "race" being anti-Semitic In virtually all cases where someone refers specifically to the Jewish RACE, the context is blatently anti-Semitic. There are other ways to refer to the ethnic group without displaying bigotry: religion, people, heritage,... Using the word "race," which is absolutely incorrect, recalls 1930s Germany. As I originally stated, I did not feel that the poster meant anything by the remark, but used it inadvertantly. His use was somewhat akin to using "guys and girls" instead of "guys and gals," a minor faux pas that some people resent. I must point out, though, that many Jewish people would react to that choice of words as a strong ethnic slur. So please be careful.
avi@pegasus.UUCP (Avi E. Gross) (08/22/85)
In article <597@hou2b.UUCP> halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: >Re Tay-Sachs... >Virtually all Tay-Sachs births in the US today are to non-Jewish >parents. (Statistic from the Tay-Sachs Research Center, or whatever >it's called.) Why? Those at highest risk get screening, so they >do not conceive a potential TS baby. Those at lower risk do not >worry themselves about it, so do not get screened. In about a >generation or so, expect Tay-Sachs to be essentially erradicated >among Jews, but prevalent among others. I agree with the rest of the article, but there is an error in the above submission. The frequency of the Tay-Sachs gene (you need two copies of the defective gene to have the illness, one to be a carrier) is likely to stay at almost the same levels in all populations. Roughly one in 30 Ashkenazic Jews and one in 300 Sephardi Jews (a genetically distinct group for many centuries) and one in 300 non-jews bears a single defective copy of the gene. No live person beyond the age of five bears two copies. One of 900 random marriages between Orthodox Ashkenazic Jews has the potential of producing a child with Tay-Sachs. Of every four children, one will not carry the gene, two will be carriers, and the fourth one is born with a death sentence. 58 of the remaining marriages will have one partner who is a carrier, and half of their children will be carriers. The other 941 marriages will produce non-carriers only. I had myself tested years ago, and know I am not a carrier. Therefore, my wife did not need to be tested, and no test for Tay-Sachs was done when the amniocentesis was done on my daughter, Samantha. If a couple at risk chooses amniocentesis, they can abort -- but this does not do anything to the number of people who have Tay-Sachs in their genes, since the child would have died without passing the gene on. Only if they choose not to have children in the first place, will they avoid passing it on. If the couple does not believe in abortion (as many do), then they are not likely to bother with testing, and again the genetic distribution in the population is not affected. I suspect that J.Halle meant that the number of Jewish-born Tay-Sachs children would approach zero -- not that the gene would disappear. Now that some of the closely-knit conditions in the European Shtetl have largely disappeared, more marriages are with Sephardic Jews (several of my cousins) and non-jews (several other cousins). Paradoxically, this could actually increase the frequency of the gene, since fewer marriages would have a chance of wasting the gene on someone who will die! I didn't mean to belabor the point, but there are literally hundreds of well-studied genetic diseases that are localized to inbred-populations that happen to be limited to Ashkenazic or Sephardic Jews or both. It is a fascinating topic (from a biochemical/medical) view as well and one of the few things I paid any attention to in medical school. I apologize for getting a bit pedantic about it. One interesting sidelight is that Jews (as a whole) can be shown genetically to be quite diverse, and not a "race". I am still puzzled how anybody can refer to orientals, blacks and others as being of a different "race", when we can clearly interbreed. Perhaps they would just prefer that we didn't! I wonder if some of the creationists in net.originds would now jump in and tell me that actually orientals and blacks are just different "kinds" :-) -- -=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241 suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, ahuta, ...]!pegasus!avi