The study they refer to, is a groundbreaking peer-reviewed paper by Armenian molecular geneticists. What it says is that by studying 225 affected and 225 healthy subjects they found a correlation between schizophrenia and a *variant of the “C1QB gene”,
🧵 THREAD 🧵
1) Recent Аzeri propaganda campaign, “Аrmеոiaոs have a gеոе for schizophrenia & other mental disorders”, is a narrative often gloatingly thrown in the middle of heated debates as a derisive argument against the collective sanity of
The study they refer to, is a groundbreaking peer-reviewed paper by Armenian molecular geneticists. What it says is that by studying 225 affected and 225 healthy subjects they found a correlation between schizophrenia and a *variant of the “C1QB gene”,
So what is this “C1qB gene”? Is it an “Armenian gene”, as Аzeris like to claim? ⬇️
But, if Azeris insist they “don’t have this gene” — we should absolutely agree 🦠 👌
The paper talks of C1QB polymorphism (SNPs) which simply means “variations” of the same gene (more than 1 allele). The researchers investigated 4 SNPs, of which 1 SNP of C1QA (another subcomponent of C1Q) and 3 SNPs of C1QB.
Great, but is this an “Armenian variant of the gene”? ⬇️
European Caucasoid DOES NOT mean “people from Caucasus” nor “Armenian”. It’s the biological term for “whitе” people
Left: the SNPs from the ARM paper. The 2 SNPs from Martens’ paper are highlighted in ochre; other 2 in blue; red circle is the identified SNP.
Right: screenshots from Martens’ paper.
a) why research C1Q and schizophrenia
b) why was the research done in Armenia
a) It has been know for decades that Schizophrenia is linked to the immune system function — in ALL humans (including аzeris, if they identify as such); Armenians don’t own exclusive patent rights to mental disorders. Hit google “schizophrenia immune system”.
a) con’d. Previous research showed that altered function of the immune system was linked to the disorder and looking for links in the classical pathway (among 2 others C1Q) has been a research topic for some time.
a) con’d
Naturally, since schizophrenia is a disorder found across the whole planet, and certainly not in the Armenian population alone, investigating SNPs that are shared across the planet, is the logical choice for finding its genetic source.
https://t.co/l8PdVNrUz9
b) First of, because the researchers are Armenian and if you do research in country X and get your funding there, you don’t get your subjects from country Y, unless country Y is the ONLY place where your research applies.
b) cont’d
PLUS the field of molecular biology is very well-developed in #Armenia. #Azerbaijan will nеvеr achieve such excellence. So instead of gloating, they should be рissеd that poor, landlocked Armenia outperforms their oil-fed неllноle in virtually ALL scientific fields
b) cont’d
There’s another reason why I think genetic studies done in #Armenia have an added value for all genomicists, and why #Azerbaijan|is won’t like this.
Armenians are not only ethno-linguistic but also genetic isolates with “ancient DNA”(aDNA)
https://t.co/uz7ZeVHb90
b) cont’d
Another peer-reviewed paper where they compared modern Armenian (Artsakh, Erzrum, Ararat) mtDNA to ancient (up to 7K y/o) ancient DNA from skeletons found in the region. Then compared it to the DNA of other neighbors.
https://t.co/IdaK5Om24Q
b) cont’d
Guess what they 👆found (НЕАЯТ АТТАСК ALERT 🚨 FOR АZЕRlS): Armenians are are NOT aLiEn iNvAdEr GypSiEs. In fact, the results show clear continuity between ancient DNA from S.Caucasus and modern Armenians. And that can’t be said about Аzeris.
https://t.co/IdaK5Om24Q
b) cont’d
And that 👆CAN’T be said about Аzeris. Sorry. KarabakhNOTbizimdir for you guys after all.
#ArtsakhIsArmenia. Period
https://t.co/IdaK5Om24Q
AZ: https://t.co/TMwNeIF95n
ARM: https://t.co/B8iN1C3G88
DALY’s are normalized so you can compare populations.
And look at that! Who’s “schizophrenic” now?
Sorry, mоրօոs
A) No, Armenians don’t own the exclusive rights to schizophrenia nor other mental disorders
B) Statistics attest to higher prevalence of schizophrenia among Аzeris than Armenians.⬇️
C) ...
C) The study was done among Armenians because Armenian researchers excel in a bunch of scientific field, including genomics + our “ancient” DNA as a blanc canvas is eminently suitable for studying hereditary disorders in ALL European Caucasoid people. ⬇️
Choose wisely.
More from For later read
Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.
How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.
Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.
I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.
And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.
(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)
How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.
And if the environment at the org was toxic or abusive, it is not uncommon to not realize the extent of that toxicity/abuse until after you're out. But by the time you realize that you signed under duress and presumed good faith where none existed, you're out of options.
— Lauren Thoman (@LaurenThoman) February 16, 2021
Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.
I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.
And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.
(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
You May Also Like
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.