• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Microchimerism

Daniel DeLuca

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I did a search on this topic of Men's DNA found in women, and I thought it vital to share this article. We need to be aware of this, and stop using this as the basis of our arguments.


Fact Check: Study did not find women ‘store’ DNA from intercourse with men​

By Reuters Fact Check
January 24, 20249:45 AM CSTUpdated 6 months ago



Reuters Fact Check logo

A 2012 study did not find that women “store” men’s DNA after sexual intercourse, as suggested by an old headline, which recently resurfaced online, from a defunct website that repeatedly published misinformation.
Both the 2012 study cited in the 2018 article, and another study from 2005 by one of the same authors, speculated about the possibility - yet to be explored - that male DNA found in a woman’s bloodstream (a phenomenon known as “microchimerism”) could be partly due to intercourse, among other already-known sources, according to two of the authors.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“Thus, it is erroneous and misleading to state that intercourse leads to microchimerism,” William F. N. Chan, an author of the 2012 study, said in an email.
A recent Facebook post, opens new tab shares an image with the headline “Women Store DNA From Every Man They’ve Ever Made Love With, Study Finds” that dates from a May 20, 2018, opens new tab, article by Neon Nettle, an online publication that no longer exists, but which previously published false, opens new tab reports.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue


Reuters Image
An image in the circulating post of two men with a young girl between them is labeled to suggest that one man, a prior partner of the girl’s mother, is the child’s real father.
The Neon Nettle article cites a study led by Chan titled, “Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain, opens new tab” published in 2012. Microchimerism, opens new tab refers to the presence of cells in an individual that are from another individual. The authors note that the presence of male cells in women’s bodies is already established as being linked to prior pregnancies with a male fetus or transfer from a male sibling in utero, for example.


They describe male DNA found in the brains of women in their study as “most likely” from prior pregnancy with a male fetus and do not conclude or mention that women store DNA from males acquired through intercourse.
“In our study as well as others done prior, we merely speculate the establishment of microchimerism through intercourse,” Chan told Reuters. “That is, the possibility exists but it has not been tested (or proven, as the lay person may say).”

Dr. J. Lee Nelson, another author of the 2012 study, addressed the storage claim in a 2018 interview, opens new tab with Business Insider. “Any suggestion that male DNA is routinely retained from sexual partners has no support from any scientific study,” Nelson said, adding that while some studies mention the possibility, it has not been tested.
A 2005 study by Nelson and colleagues that looked for male DNA in women’s blood is also cited by the Neon Nettle article, but that study also only speculates about sex as a possible source of the DNA.

The 2005 study, opens new tab lists the more likely sources first, including known pregnancies with a male fetus, unrecognized spontaneous abortion, a vanished male twin or cells from an older brother in the woman’s mother’s bloodstream that were transferred to the daughter while she was in utero.
“Another possibility that has not been investigated is whether male DNA can be detected in a woman’s circulation from sexual intercourse without pregnancy,” the study authors wrote.
Chan said that even today, there is still no “recent peer-reviewed study that directly addresses this possibility. In other words, the claim remains false.”
(Updated on Jan. 24 to correct author affiliation in paragraph 3)
VERDICT
False. A 2012 study did not find that women store male DNA from sexual intercourse.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
 
No offense, but in the last 3 years I have seen that once-honorable "scientific" journals like the NEJM and Lancet have whored themselves out to the "safe and effective" mRNA BS. (Read Dr. Pierre Kory's excellent work, The War on Ivermectin, to see just what damage has been done.)

So - when it comes to the likes of Reuters, especially when they call it a "fact check" - I'll look for TWO more witnesses...

PS> Scripture is THE primary basis for argument. Admittedly, I got there via "science," at least in part. But that was back when evidence mattered. At best, what we see is an occasional 'secondary witness' from once-presitgious journals. Which still beat the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al.
 
Last edited:
There goes your favorite word again. I thought Freud was a wackjob but I'm starting to rethink my rejection of him.
 
There goes your favorite word again.
Had to think about what the insult was there. And to what "word" you take such objection.

"Science?"

When it's "Bought and Paid for," and it gets people killed as a result - I then know one thing that it is NOT!
 
Had to think about what the insult was there. And to what "word" you take such objection.

"Science?"

When it's "Bought and Paid for," and it gets people killed as a result - I then know one thing that it is NOT!


I could extended dance remix on that for way way more than y'all want to read. Big pharma...well, let's back that up to the medical industry broadly as well as nutrition which feeds into big agribusiness, medical industrial complex, government regulatory agency muckety mucks revolving back and forth between industry and government...going to stop there before I want to actually go off in any depth.

The end result being that the world if dull of corruption and none of it benefits us
 
Last edited:
I love science - especially as a kid growing up. It was always one of my favorite subjects. What I've found out is that scientists - no matter how many Harvard degrees they may possess - can be just as easily corrupted as a politician. I still love science, but I don't trust the "facts" they give us. Covid revealed that many of them are in bed with the state. I believe they may be serving that "additional master" that those in hollywood, religion, and politics also serve.

It's one big club, and you're not in it (nor should you want to be in it). If you're passionate about something - do your own testing and research it yourself.
 
If a somewhat audacious argument is made that woman store men's DNA then it is up to that group to prove it. It is not the responsibility of the defenders of the status quo, that current doctrine is still valid.

Everything of scientific value needs to be peer reviewed. If your work is not peer reviewed you have no basis to stand one. Of course the quality of the reviews can differ. If a US laboratory and a Chinese one agree on the same principle, well that is a good foundation.

CNN, Reuters, etc are not publishing sources. My favorite go to sources are Nature, and Scientific American.
 
...What I've found out is that scientists - no matter how many Harvard degrees they may possess - can be just as easily corrupted as a politician. I still love science, but I don't trust the "facts" they give us. Covid revealed that many of them are in bed with the state...

I spent some time (daily news show) on a Huge Pile of BS this week marketed as a "new study" this week by a "prestigious medical journal" (covered in the Brit Daily Mail) that claimed to show that "long COVID" didn't really exist, because people who never had 'COVID' were just as likely to get -whatever- as those who had.

And after reading about the 'methodology,' I noticed something that may be missing.

So I searched for "vaccine," or "mRNA," or any indication that it had EVER occurred to the Brilliant Researchers or their "peer reviewers" to control for those subjects who just MIGHT have "whatever" they didn't find statistical evidence of based on whether they had been given that [verbotten topic!] 'vaccine'.
 
[Peer Review' ...Of course the quality of the reviews can differ.
If the 'reviewers' are paid by the same Big Pharma (etc) 'johns' that paid for the original desired results, that's often another clue. But they have learned how to hide it, or just plain lie. And those "journals," and their editors, were in on the take.

Again: I heartily encourage people to read Dr. Pierre Kory's blockbuster, The War on Ivermectin. He was a self-described liberal who started to ask forbidden questions, lost his license and accreditations for attempting honest research, and was ultimately labelled a 'right-wing conspiracy theorist' just for trying to save the lives of his patients. But it was also a big threat to the Big Lie: not just "safe and effective," but "emergency use" (EUA).

Because if there is a REAL 'safe, effective,' cheap, and even GENERIC alternative - you can't force the whole world to take poison.

RFK, Jr's book, The Real Anthony Fauci, likewise makes a similar point, as well as a good case for "treason."
 
I do not understand the arguing against vaccines. Yes, certain people have negative reactions against certain vaccines but in the end it is going to be something like 6 people have issues, 6 million benefit. Vaccines have done wonders against dieses like Polio. To argue against them defies logic. M-RNA is one of the potentially best attack vectors against cancer.

I do believe that people should have a choice, but (this is something that many people want to avoid) with freedom also comes responsibility. If parents choose not to vaccinate a child, then that choice should be respected, however if the child then dies or gets complications from said disease then the parents can go to hell. Not to mention have a chat with a judge.
 
If a somewhat audacious argument is made that woman store men's DNA then it is up to that group to prove it. It is not the responsibility of the defenders of the status quo, that current doctrine is still valid.

Everything of scientific value needs to be peer reviewed. If your work is not peer reviewed you have no basis to stand one. Of course the quality of the reviews can differ. If a US laboratory and a Chinese one agree on the same principle, well that is a good foundation.

CNN, Reuters, etc are not publishing sources. My favorite go to sources are Nature, and Scientific American.


Additional factor in analysis... who is funding the study.

Not looked too deeply into it but I will bet you a shiney new nickel that the Tufts food compass by way of example is heavily funded by big food companies.
That they will have peer review studies which will attempt to justify claims like lucky charms being better for a child's breakfast than eggs.

Much of what we are told is based on money changing hands.

Then there is methodology of the study and how a study can casually be produced with a narrative in mind before starting.

Maybe later though...not had coffee yet and got to cook everyone breakfast.
 
One thing about medical research that IS an issues is that a lot of the study are predominantly white. Asians, Blacks might potentially react differently, and they need to put in more effort here.
 
I do not understand the arguing against vaccines.
LONG answer possible; there are multiple threads on the topic. (I have provided much information, easy to find if you are curious.)

But, very briefly:

1) mRNA is NOT a 'vaccine.' (Until Fauci et al changed the definition itself, to avoid perjury conviction, and before that, commit genocide.)

2) And look at liability protection. (The left makes the asinine claim that 'guns' are liability-free. But they don't know what Real Nazis are either. Vaccine "harm" has been swept under the rug for many years, but it recently went into literal "Warp Drive."

3) See the studies that....
...oops, check that. They don't WANT you to be able to. Look for the studies (and data) that the CDC and its Partners tried to hide for 75 years. But that's just the tip of the iceberg...
 
A vaccine is not defined as a specific treatment. Is some cases the body gets a dead version of a pathogen to play with, there are others, with m-RNA being a new vector.

The beauty of m-RNA is that it is not a permanent change as working on the DNA level is. Instead of having the body develop its own defense, you essentially give the ribosomes a blue print to work with.
 
Such trust. They're putting it in plants now, to avoid the ability of those who know better to say, NO.
 
Back
Top