NIH is 22 years behind in genetic researsh

This thread may be offensive to some, But by and large it is in my opinion- one I hope will enlighten more than detract from the future of men and women.
It is about who we are and where we and our reasoning's come from.

I first came here to ATS with this theory of mine in hopes to shake it out with those that claim to deny ignorance. I tried two different threads and could attract little to no interest.
My theory has been proven correct by recent studies. Come along and see what a redneck can produce 22 years before the NIH could. Actually I think the NIH is still in the dark about this one and I would bet a ton of others as they are bassackwards in there approach to genetics IMHO.
If you are not familiar with DNA -human migration - logic-substance abuse and facts --this thread is not for you.
This is about buying paperwork that says you are smart and should control or dictate others health or future.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Here is my theory that is now after 22 years--
all but a scientific fact.


Alcohol and Measured Human Evolution

No Gene for Alcoholism, but a possible way to measure Human evolution.

This hypostasis of mine is over 20 years old. I would like to explore it with you members as genetics and origins seem to be topics of interest.

My belief is that If you were to examine the genes of a society or culture that has weaned it self away from the use of alcohol---- say CHINA . Less than one percent of the population of China uses alcohol.
Compare the Chinese to a culture of 80 percent users. Australian and North American aboriginals are 80 percent users.
You would be able to measure the difference genetically and establish a time line for that transition.

Here are some facts to get started.

If you look at the global percentages of the consumption of alcohol. Then start in China and follow a spice trade like route, east you will find that India Indians have a 25 percent rate of use,
Asia Minor and the Mediterranean countries about 35 percent alcohol consumption.
Northern Europe and Africa clock in at about 55 percent.

The most interesting is the pre European North Americans and Australian aboriginals are at an amazing 80 percent in there use of alcohol. .

I compiled this data after having a very heated debate with NIH scientists . It was about the foolish breeding of Super Rats, the study of twins and convicts to find the DNA markers that prove their parent or parents caused them to become alcoholic by passing them a bad gene or predisposition for what they were now calling a disease.

When I had collected the factual data I looked at its Linearity and surmised that there could be genetic reason for the east - west increase in consumption due to reproduction.

Everything looked pretty good until I got to the Atlantic Ocean and became confused.

The science at the time was saying alcoholics inherited a predisposition from an alcoholic parent or parents much like cancer. At the time cancer had the visible DNA markers.

That could explain, that if the societal use of alcohol started in China and then copulated its way West with the spices over a period of time, you would find no barrier to stop its dissemination.

Stick with me here because I think this is the most important part.

I now had the two interesting dilemmas.

1----How did this disease copulate its way across the Atlantic and Indian ocean?

2----Why did the data percentages seem backwards?

There is no record of large scale use of alcohol in pre European N. America or Australia and no reports of massive inter-breeding to facilitate a grand scale genetic change in the aboriginal populations over night.

And why in the world would there be more drunks in those populations than in the once pie eyed Chinese.

( Absolutely no disrespect to any of the countries or cultures here.) Every culture and country in it's turn has had an identical scenario.

It occurred to me that the aboriginals didn't get the sex, just the hooch. And the booze got them drunk not their folks.

After thinking about this for awhile, I figured the data wasn't backwards at all.

If the Chinese were first to use alcohol, using the left over rice from a newly contrived agriculture ------
(my calculated guess is 7 -8,000 years ago) and if they past that process west, the numbers from the data start to make sense.
This is ok but does a poor job of explaining why there is today more use in the west than there is in the east.
Aha ha! What if the Chinese became slowly immune to the poison by a evolutionary process.
Selection of a mate, social awareness, depletion of food sources etc.

Repeat this process west ward and the data are looking pretty good.

Ok then, HOW do you prove this!
And I am not saying I can.
If I had a bunch of sober Chinese DNA donors and some from pure blooded North America and Australia aboriginals and a test lab, that would be a start.

Way unlike the National Institute of Health's program.
Perhaps it has changed in the last 20 years but I doubt it.

This was the end of my thread when I last posted it.

Do to help from other members I found out some good recent news that fits well in the Hypostasis.

Dr. Lee of the National Institute Of health has reported that central Asians have been assaulted with a flush gene that keeps Chinese folks from consuming alcohol.

I was right!

Russian geneticist have tracked and documented that gene.
Their maps look exactly like my spice trade Hypostasis.
It also shows the dissemination of the gene south through the South Pacific islands.

Unfortunately they think it is a bad gene because it is suspected to cause
esophageal cancer in those that still attempt to consume alcohol.

They do not connect it to a antidotal type of gene that has mutated to change the ability to consume alcohol.

Alcohol is a slow poison, The human factor (DNA) responds slowly.

I contend the only predisposition to consume alcohol is good health.

I have recent data and emails of my conversations with the head of NIH's major genetic alcohol research projects.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Interesting. I'm still not sure what, exactly, your hypothesis is. Explaining almost any behavior requires more subtle and less categorical thinking. You can't find the answer all in genetics. There is a mountain of evidence that links cultural and sociological factors to alcohol use, as well as genetic factors. Trying to explain alcohol use in terms of genetics - or any other single factor - alone can't be done.

Perhaps the native Americans and native Australians are more prone to drink because their civilization was virtually destroyed and almost totally replaced by europeans? Or because they continue to be stereotyped minorities, with little to no obvious place in mainstream cultural hierarchy?

Why do Americans drink and use more drugs than their genetically (nearly) identicle counterparts in europe? Certainly the explanation cannot be genetics alone. There is not enough of a difference in the genes to explain the difference in behavior. Culture is a big part of it. Countries with less strict laws prohibiting drugs and alcohol have less problems with those substances. This is because making something illegal, or illegal until you're a certain age, changes the perception of those sustances. European countries don't have the same drinking scene or percieved drinking scene at colleges as we do in the US. The list goes on.

Anyway, my point is that the factors which effect the rates of alcohol use are numerous. I think you're giving genetics too big of a roll in the explanation. We know that alcoholism has a genetic corrolation, but we also know that alcohol is a coping mechanism and an aspect of socialization. Any good explanation of alcohol use rates will include genetics, psychology, and sociology. I think it will be difficult to sort out what - if anything - can be learned about human genetics by looking at alcohol use and use history.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

A mutation that causes some Asians to flush red when they down a beer may have evolved to help their ancestors cope with rice wine.

A genetic study suggests that the mutation evolved around 10,000 years ago, about the same time as Asians were starting to farm rice and figuring out how to ferment it into boozy drinks.

The mutation causes alcohol to be metabolised at 100 times the speed that it otherwise would be.

As the enzyme removes alcohol so quickly from the blood stream, it protects people from the harmful effects of alcohol, and Su believes it confers an evolutionary advantage: a study in the Han Chinese suggests that those carrying the mutation have the lowest risk of alcoholism (American Journal of Human Genetics, vol 65 p 795).

Su's explanation is that the mutation spread across Asia and towards Europe in lockstep with rice cultivation.

The mutation in alcohol dehydrogenase would have protected those who had it from some of the nefarious effects of alcohol and alcoholism

. As a result, Su says, natural selection for the mutation caused it to spread west in near-synchrony with rice paddies.

29 January 2010
New Scientist


post by Donny 4 million

. Less than one percent of the population of China uses alcohol

Can i ask where you got that statistic ? Can you post a link .


post by Donny 4 million

There is no record of large scale use of alcohol in pre European N. America or Australia

Agriculture was not practised by the Aboriginals of Australia whilst those many tribes that inhabited N.America practised a variety of lifestyles , some farmed some crops, some were semi nomadic etc etc. There was no strong grain based alcohols .... perhaps some weak corn beers from fermented corn .

post by Donny 4 million

And why in the world would there be more drunks in those populations

Their cultures were smashed to pieces ......- escapism-

Same reason alot of folk drink heavily today. Perhaps they also did not have the ability to process alcohol , just as the San Bushmen of-the Kalahari have not until recently possessed livestock, rendering them lactose intolerant.

Another thing to consider ....

Producing enough of a fermented beverage for heavy daily consumption was probably a luxury that your average N American semi nomadic tribesman or Australian could ill afford . Such a division of labour requiring brewers and vintners would of been a product of the first urban communities . Distillation would facilitate any alcoholic tendencies even further .



It could be argued that alcoholism is a disease of civilisation ..... a product of our `abnormal` environment.

reply to post by OnceReturned


I will agree with most of what you say.
Do me a favor and try to stay with alcohol alone. There is a specific reason.
Alcohol is the only substance to be abused internationally since before recorded history and in a documented fashion.
When you bring drugs into the equation it will not correlate because these substances vary in location and time . Alcohol is really pinned down in a linier mode.
As I present my evidence you will come closer to the truth. Thank you so much for you interest and input.
With you input there are worlds of discovery awaiting.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


Thank you Umbra
I will post likewise studies. You will agree that they are brand new. YES . The less than one percent info for China came from NIH itself. I have all their publications from that era.
Hopefully you will come to understand that rice is not the culprit or savior. It was just the first crop that produced enough excess to get a whole country drunk.
Any organic material can be fermented or distilled into a basic carbon form of alcohol. Potatoes , corn, barely etc. etc. Your participation is totally welcomed and appreciated.

This is a long haul study but the promises of understanding it--- in it's simplicity are boundless.
I honestly think that dominiation plays no role in this mutation. Why ? because who dominated who to make those first folks drunk.
IMHO it is a product of our modernity.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Here is an article that very much parallels my theory. Bare in mind my theory now recognized as correct is over twenty years old and accomplished by a redneck woodsman.



Red-faced from drinking? It could be an evolutionary advantage
Posted by TIME.com Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm
14 Comments • Trackback (13) • Related Topics: alcohol
Lots of people get flushed in the face when they feel embarrassed, but for many Asians it's the facial flush itself that can be embarrassing.

About half of all people of Asian descent share a genetic trait that causes a prompt reddening of the face in response to drinking alcohol — the result of an enzyme deficiency that interferes with alcohol metabolism and causes the temporary build-up in the body of a toxic chemical product. For some, the red face is a mere nuisance; for others, it can be accompanied by symptoms such as rapid heartbeat and skin swelling. Talk about a buzz-kill.


Now researchers speculate about why East Asians have the flushing gene in the first place. According to a new study in BMC Evolutionary Biology, the genetic mutation that causes the reaction first appeared about 10,000 years ago in Southern China, at about the same time residents began farming rice along the Yangtze River. The study's authors hypothesize that the alcohol intolerance associated with facial flushing may have evolved as a survival strategy enabling ancient populations to enjoy the positive effects of alcohol derived from fermented rice — it can be used as a disinfectant and preservative — while imbibing in moderation. "This is one of the few cases reported demonstrating the genetic adaptation of human populations to the dramatic changes in agriculture and diet during Neolithic times," said Bing Su, one of the study's co-authors from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in a press release about the study.

By sampling DNA from 38 distinct Asian populations from relatively isolated provincial areas, ranging from Han Chinese to Tibetans, researchers observed that the flushing gene was much more prevalent in groups that began farming rice the earliest. For example, while the mutation appears in nearly 70% of Han Chinese, who began farming rice 7,000 to 10,000 years ago, it shows up in only 14% of Tibetans, whose rice culture developed later. Molecular dating of rice found in ancient pottery has enabled anthropologists to determine when rice farming began in different regions of the continent.

While the red-faced alcohol response can be annoying, it may also be beneficial to populations on the whole, as it appears to be associated with lower rates of alcoholism. In fact, the drug disulfiram, which is used to prevent relapse in recovering alcoholics, has some of the same biochemical effects as the flushing gene does when it is expressed. — By Anita Hamilton

reply to post by UmbraSumus


It is interesting to note the semi-denial squirm of the Yale dude who is not convinced as yet.
Your recent New Scientist information seems to come from the same study as the Time.com link I posted.
A comment I think apropos here is that the gene was not passed by sex.
It developed first in the Chines by the use or consumption of alcohol more like a carcinogenic cancer.
The mutation is developing as we speak in all cultures that still consume alcohol.
You see it is not passed genetics it is a developed mutation visa vies the consumption.
Let's say a woman or man that came from a society that never used or uses alcohol but has the health and capacity to consume it, reproduces with a person that has had the mutation in his or her genes for thousands of years. The offspring , depending on recessive or dominate traits will most likely have a 50 percent chance of never becoming alcoholic.
Of course where you have plenty of folks in an isolated society like China and there is the developed mutation in many and they breed that mutation will spread in a more concentrated way.
But here is the crux----- If you have an isolated (alcohol virgin) society such as Australian aboriginals.
You will not need any genes for the mutation to be copulated into the population to get the mutation evolving.
All you will need is alcohol.
I know this all seems upside down and backwards but I assure you it is not.