jews-hereditary-degenerate

[Cherokee]

Summary
Background
Congenital anomalies are a leading cause of infant death and disability and their incidence varies between ethnic groups in the UK. Rates of infant death are highest in children of Pakistani origin, and congenital anomalies are the most common cause of death in children younger than 12 in this ethnic group. We investigated the incidence of congenital anomalies in a large multiethnic birth cohort to identify the causes of the excess of congenital anomalies in this community.

Methods
We obtained questionnaire data from the mothers of children with one or more anomalies from the Born in Bradford study, a prospective birth cohort study of 13 776 babies and their families in which recruitment was undertaken between 2007 and 2011. Details of anomalies were prospectively reported to the study and we cross checked these details against medical records. We linked data for anomalies to maternal questionnaire and clinical data gathered as part of the Born in Bradford study. We calculated univariate and multivariate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for various maternal risk factors.

Findings
Of 11 396 babies for whom questionnaire data were available, 386 (3%) had a congenital anomaly. Rates for congenital anomaly were 305·74 per 10 000 livebirths, compared with a national rate of 165·90 per 10 000. The risk was greater for mothers of Pakistani origin than for those of white British origin (univariate RR 1·96, 95% CI 1·56–2·46). Overall, 2013 (18%) babies were the offspring of first-cousin unions. These babies were mainly of Pakistani origin—1922 (37%) of 5127 babies of Pakistani origin had parents in first-cousin unions. Consanguinity was associated with a doubling of risk for congenital anomaly (multivariate RR 2·19, 95% CI 1·67–2·85); we noted no association with increasing deprivation. 31% of all anomalies in children of Pakistani origin could be attributed to consanguinity. We noted a similar increase in risk for mothers of white British origin older than 34 years (multivariate RR 1·83, 95% CI 1·14–3·00). Maternal education to degree level was protective (0·53, 95% CI 0·38–0·75), irrespective of ethnic origin.

Interpretation
Consanguinity is a major risk factor for congenital anomaly. The risk remains even after adjustment for deprivation, and accounts for almost a third of anomalies in babies of Pakistani origin. High levels of educational attainment are associated with reduced risk in all ethnic groups. Our findings will be valuable in health promotion and public health, and to those commissioning antenatal, paediatric, and clinical genetic services. Sensitive advice about the risks should be provided to communities at increased risk, and to couples in consanguineous unions, to assist in reproductive decision making.

Funding
National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care programme.


Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61132-0/abstract

 

[Hamza913]

Findings
Of 11 396 babies for whom questionnaire data were available, 386 (3%) had a congenital anomaly. Rates for congenital anomaly were 305·74 per 10 000 livebirths, compared with a national rate of 165·90 per 10 000. The risk was greater for mothers of Pakistani origin than for those of white British origin (univariate RR 1·96, 95% CI 1·56–2·46). Overall, 2013 (18%) babies were the offspring of first-cousin unions. These babies were mainly of Pakistani origin—1922 (37%) of 5127 babies of Pakistani origin had parents in first-cousin unions. Consanguinity was associated with a doubling of risk for congenital anomaly (multivariate RR 2·19, 95% CI 1·67–2·85); we noted no association with increasing deprivation. 31% of all anomalies in children of Pakistani origin could be attributed to consanguinity. We noted a similar increase in risk for mothers of white British origin older than 34 years (multivariate RR 1·83, 95% CI 1·14–3·00). Maternal education to degree level was protective (0·53, 95% CI 0·38–0·75), irrespective of ethnic origin.

You just proved my point again.

 

[Cherokee]

You just proved my point again.

No one in countering the risks of having babies after 34 its well established, just as well established is the fact that cousin marriages lead to increased risk of having babies with genetic defect, just as well established fact that British Pakistanis lead the nation in number of children born with genetic defect.
You cannot pick and choose parts that you like and ignore the rest.

 

[Hamza913]

No one in countering the risks of having babies after 34 its well established, just as well established is the fact that cousin marriages lead to increased risk of having babies with genetic, just as well established fact that British Pakistanis lead the nation in number of children born with genetic defect.

I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing whether or not the risk is high enough to ban the practice on health grounds alone. The answer is a clear no, the chances of defection aren't high enough.

The only argument that works in favour of a ban is that it costs the NHS additional money.

 

[Cherokee]

Fifth of Luton's infant deaths linked to kin marriage

About one fifth of infant deaths in Luton are caused by hereditary genetic conditions, council figures show.

About 18 children under the age of one die each year, and about four of these are due to conditions linked to cousin marriage, Luton Borough Council said.

Statistics also show infant mortality in the town is above the national average.

It has set up a review group to look at the relevant health risks, to see if losses can be reduced.

Data from 2010-2012 shows that for every 1,000 live births, an average of 5.2 babies between 0-12 months die in Luton, compared to a national figure of 4.4.

The council has set up the Infant Mortality Rate in Luton group to investigate all the causes, including links to deprivation and poverty, as well as genetic issues.

Together with partners from Luton and Dunstable Hospital and the Luton Clinical Commissioning Group, it is examining what can be done to reduce the losses.

'Right information'
The council's director of public health, Gerry Taylor, said it was looking at genetic conditions in the same way as any other health risk for infant mortality, such as smoking in pregnancy and maternal obesity, and making sure the right services were available.

"We are making sure people have the right information upon which to make their decisions," she said.

"We are working with the screening and genetic counselling service, to make sure they have tailored information to meet the particular health needs of Luton's population.

"We have also started to really work with communities in Luton to find out about the issues that relate to particular decisions in life."

She said it was "not about making judgements about people's behaviour" but the council had a responsibility to try and improve the health of the town's population.

Zafar Khan from the Luton Council of Faiths, who has been married to his first cousin for 36 years, said people were becoming more aware of medical science and the risks involved with marrying in the "close kin group".

"People have tests and wherever it's appropriate, people refrain from marrying in the close kin, but it will take time I think," he said.

"But [a couple] should not actually enter marriage if they know that there is the potential of having a child that would be born with some deformity or disability.

"Social customs evolve over centuries so whatever change takes place, takes place slowly."

I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing whether or not the risk is high enough to ban the practice on health grounds alone. The answer is a clear no, the chances of defection aren't high enough.

The only argument that works in favour of a ban is that it costs the NHS additional money.

No one is asking for ban but greater awareness.

 

[Hamza913]

Fifth of Luton's infant deaths linked to kin marriage

About one fifth of infant deaths in Luton are caused by hereditary genetic conditions, council figures show.

About 18 children under the age of one die each year, and about four of these are due to conditions linked to cousin marriage, Luton Borough Council said.

Statistics also show infant mortality in the town is above the national average.

It has set up a review group to look at the relevant health risks, to see if losses can be reduced.

Data from 2010-2012 shows that for every 1,000 live births, an average of 5.2 babies between 0-12 months die in Luton, compared to a national figure of 4.4.

The council has set up the Infant Mortality Rate in Luton group to investigate all the causes, including links to deprivation and poverty, as well as genetic issues.

Together with partners from Luton and Dunstable Hospital and the Luton Clinical Commissioning Group, it is examining what can be done to reduce the losses.

'Right information'
The council's director of public health, Gerry Taylor, said it was looking at genetic conditions in the same way as any other health risk for infant mortality, such as smoking in pregnancy and maternal obesity, and making sure the right services were available.

"We are making sure people have the right information upon which to make their decisions," she said.

"We are working with the screening and genetic counselling service, to make sure they have tailored information to meet the particular health needs of Luton's population.

"We have also started to really work with communities in Luton to find out about the issues that relate to particular decisions in life."

She said it was "not about making judgements about people's behaviour" but the council had a responsibility to try and improve the health of the town's population.

Zafar Khan from the Luton Council of Faiths, who has been married to his first cousin for 36 years, said people were becoming more aware of medical science and the risks involved with marrying in the "close kin group".

"People have tests and wherever it's appropriate, people refrain from marrying in the close kin, but it will take time I think," he said.

"But [a couple] should not actually enter marriage if they know that there is the potential of having a child that would be born with some deformity or disability.

"Social customs evolve over centuries so whatever change takes place, takes place slowly."

5.2 per 1000 is still incredibly small, and not that much higher than 4.4 per 1000 either.

 

[Cherokee]

Most of the resident British Pakistanis on this forum outright deny there is any risk of genetic defect due to cousin marriages even when the facts the laughing in the face.

 

[Hamza913]

No one is asking for ban but greater awareness.

On that we can agree.

 

[Cherokee]

5.2 per 1000 is still incredibly small, and not that much higher than 4.4 per 1000 either.

Its an increase and facts are there for everyone. 3 percent of births but 31 percent of genetic defects .

 

[Hamza913]

Most of the resident British Pakistanis on this forum outright deny there is any risk of genetic defect due to cousin marriages even when the facts the laughing in the face.

Yeah, better awareness is needed, however, I do feel the way in which people present it is terrible.

Most people make things seem way worse than they are (which doesn't help AT ALL).

Its an increase and facts are there for everyone. 3 percent of births but 31 percent of genetic defects .

As discussed earlier, that statistic is for Bradford, where Pakistanis make up 20% of the population, not 3%.

Secondly, this is only for congenital anomalies.

 

[Cherokee]

As discussed earlier, that statistic is for Bradford, where Pakistanis make up 20% of the population, not 3%.

Secondly, this is only for congenital anomalies.

3 percent of annual UK births.

 

[Hamza913]

3 percent of annual UK births.

And still 1/3 of defects? Sorry but I'm going to call bull, unless most other defects are non congenital in nature.

 

[Cherokee]

And still 1/3 of defects? Sorry but I'm going to call bull, unless most other defects are non congenital in nature.

Its there on the first page of this thread. Sue BBC for misinformation or the researcher for lying in that case which no one is doing . At best where they were challenged, they played "Islamophobia" card.

If the facts were incorrect they would have been sued already.

 

[Hamza913]

Its there on the first page of this thread. Sue BBC for misinformation or the researcher for lying in that case which no one is doing . At best where they were challenged, they played "Islamophobia" card.

If the facts were incorrect they would have been sued already.

Again, none of the figures you've quoted show Pakistanis have that high a defect rate.

This stat is either nonsense or hasn't been explained properly (as with your earlier claims).

 

[Cherokee]

Again, none of the figures you've quoted show Pakistanis have that high a defect rate.

This stat is either nonsense or hasn't been explained properly (as with your earlier claims).

Check the first page of this thread it's there. Read this as well. its a fact http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102