In Most Cases, Genes Have Less Than 5% Contribution To Disease Risk

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Jan 14, 2020.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    16,614
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Yet another study (published by geneticists who have a vested interest to come up with results that say otherwise) according to which for the vast majority of diseases genes explain at most 5% of the cause. So, worded differently, more than 95% of the risk of developing a particular disease is entirely environmental. Btw, those 5% or less should also not be ascribed to genes just yet. The authors use genetic as an equivalent term to hereditary, yet we now know that health status and propensity for developing disease can be heritable but NOT genetic. It is gene methylation patterns that can be passed on from parents to offspring and studies have demonstrated transgenerational (inherited) "memories" of ancestral health that can span at least 14 generations. One of those studies argued that our health is basically an exponential weighted average of the health of the previous 10-14 generations of our direct ancestors, with the health of the last 3 generations contributing the most.

    Transgenerational transmission of environmental information in C. elegans
    https://phys.org/news/2017-04-environmental-memories.html
    Scientists Have Observed Epigenetic Memories Being Passed Down For 14 Generations

    Either way, as it turns out the Weismann's Doctrine is little more than another "scientific" fraud and the fact that it continues to be taught as pure fact in medical schools and used to guide medical research is nothing short of criminal. It has become patently obvious that in the absence of direct and irrefutable evidence for a genetic component (i.e. specific gene or cluster of such) of a specific disease, every disease should be considered environmental in origin and as such both reversible and very often iatrogenic.

    Assessing the performance of genome-wide association studies for predicting disease risk
    Your DNA is not your destiny, or a good predictor of your health

    "...In most cases, your genes have less than five percent to do with your risk of developing a particular disease, according to new research by University of Alberta scientists. In the largest meta analysis ever conducted, scientists have examined two decades of data from studies that examine the relationships between common gene mutations, also known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and different diseases and conditions. And the results show that the links between most human diseases and genetics are shaky at best. “Simply put, DNA is not your destiny, and SNPs are duds for disease prediction,” said David Wishart, professor in the University of Alberta’s Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Computing Science and co-author on the study. “The vast majority of diseases, including many cancers, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, have a genetic contribution of 5 to 10 percent at best.”"
     
  2. Rick K

    Rick K Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    20
    Gender:
    Male
    Amen brother. Any scientific hypothesis (or dogma) that treats the human genome as predisposed to self destruction by "disease genes" is the lamest form of pseudo scientific hogwash and the proponents of such tripe should be stripped of all credentials and reduced to selling vacuum cleaners. All living organisms are predisposed to survival or life would not exist. We are, in effect, adaptogens.
     
  3. Dizzy45

    Dizzy45 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    Gender:
    Male
    Reduced to selling vacuum cleaners made me LOL.
    Great posts
    Couldn’t agree more
     
  4. Rafael Lao Wai

    Rafael Lao Wai Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,157
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks, haidut!

    I agree. Some people say that believing that the organisms are shaped by their environment is akin to believing that creatures are in a blank slate- like state. Organisms always have room for change( adaptations), but they are, as haidut said, the accumulation of many changes that their ancestors developed, so it's not a case of blank- slatism at all. Of course, that means we're not all the same, since our experiences and the experiences of our ancestors are going to be always different, but one thing that is present in every living creature, as you said, is the tendency to adapt. In that regard, we're equal.
     
  5. JudiBlueHen

    JudiBlueHen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    GWAS, genome-wide association studies, are just that: associations/correlations, not causations. They can be useful if put in their proper context. For example, if your CYP3A4 phenotype contains a non-functional allele, then you could be a "slow metabolizer" of most pharmaceuticals. This does not lead to any particular disease or condition, but could explain why you cannot tolerate large doses of many medications, and why you are more subject to side effects - in other words "it is not just in your mind". This is helpful to know when presented with a recommendation from a physician to take a certain medication, or when considering which medication to take among a set of candidate medications for a particular issue.
     
Loading...