It's not reasonable. Down's is Trisomy 21, meaning you have an extra chromosome 21 (you should have 2, if you have 3 you have Down's, putting the tri in Trisomy). Chromosomes are large sets of genes. Incorporating a single extra gene is problematic enough; incorporating an entire extra chromosome through injection (well, and having the subject survive) is just not currently possible. We can barely do it in E. coli, which are much simpler and much more resilient than humans as you probably know.
Now, in 10, 20, 50 years? Maybe. But incorporated-gene therapy has been the holy grail of synthetic biology in medicine since the discovery of DNA, and so far we haven't had much success. The best we've done is free-floating DNA/RNA + delivered to cells by lipids or adenoviruses. But still once we reliably cross the hurdle of incorporating a single gene into a human genome without killing the patient (and CRISPR/Cas9 will probably facilitate this), that's still a far cry from incorporating an entire chromosome of 200-600 genes (depending on the chromosome) all at once.
Ha, how long? They've dug up ancient bones and found genomic evidence of Trisomy 21. And how "modern" on the vaccine regiment? Cowpox inoculation for smallpox was around the dawn of the 19th century, while Down's was first characterized in Western medicine around the mid 19th century. I think chromosomal staining for detection was late 19th/early 20th century.
History aside - Trisomy 21 always comes first. It can be detected the womb just as soon as you can detect fetal cells in the mother's blood (around 9 weeks last I checked). Amniocentesis gives the best information for diagnosis, but regardless, we can see if there are chromosomal anomalies long before the first vaccine is even considered for the infant.
Yes but you seemed to just suggest a correlation between vaccines and Trisomy 21 that is in contradiction to your conclusion.
We can only find evidence of Trisomy 21 dating back to middle of 19th century. Just decades after vaccine shots were first introduced? That seems to suggest cause/effect relationship.
Now if you were able to show me evidence of trisomy 21 dating back to ancient times then I would agree with you. For example, large gravesites of sacrificed children in Aztec and Mayan civilization ruins. No signs of down syndrome in massive grave sites of dead children dating back hundreds of years?
I'm debating for debate sake. I have no hard line stance or investment in what the right answer is.
I read it somewhere ages ago. Didn't save it. When you inject children with the most inbred dna possible, which you know has that, then you end up with white children with down syndrome.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I think it's a reasonable hypothesis. Just wondering if anyone has researched it and found supportive evidence.
It's not reasonable. Down's is Trisomy 21, meaning you have an extra chromosome 21 (you should have 2, if you have 3 you have Down's, putting the tri in Trisomy). Chromosomes are large sets of genes. Incorporating a single extra gene is problematic enough; incorporating an entire extra chromosome through injection (well, and having the subject survive) is just not currently possible. We can barely do it in E. coli, which are much simpler and much more resilient than humans as you probably know.
Now, in 10, 20, 50 years? Maybe. But incorporated-gene therapy has been the holy grail of synthetic biology in medicine since the discovery of DNA, and so far we haven't had much success. The best we've done is free-floating DNA/RNA + delivered to cells by lipids or adenoviruses. But still once we reliably cross the hurdle of incorporating a single gene into a human genome without killing the patient (and CRISPR/Cas9 will probably facilitate this), that's still a far cry from incorporating an entire chromosome of 200-600 genes (depending on the chromosome) all at once.
Again, to reiterate, and keep the patient alive.
Is there evidence of downs syndrome in human beings long before any modern era vaccine regimen?
A positive answer to that would suggest that down syndrome has no correlation with vaccine regimens and pre-exists it.
Thanks for your other valuable input.
Ha, how long? They've dug up ancient bones and found genomic evidence of Trisomy 21. And how "modern" on the vaccine regiment? Cowpox inoculation for smallpox was around the dawn of the 19th century, while Down's was first characterized in Western medicine around the mid 19th century. I think chromosomal staining for detection was late 19th/early 20th century.
History aside - Trisomy 21 always comes first. It can be detected the womb just as soon as you can detect fetal cells in the mother's blood (around 9 weeks last I checked). Amniocentesis gives the best information for diagnosis, but regardless, we can see if there are chromosomal anomalies long before the first vaccine is even considered for the infant.
Yes but you seemed to just suggest a correlation between vaccines and Trisomy 21 that is in contradiction to your conclusion.
We can only find evidence of Trisomy 21 dating back to middle of 19th century. Just decades after vaccine shots were first introduced? That seems to suggest cause/effect relationship.
Now if you were able to show me evidence of trisomy 21 dating back to ancient times then I would agree with you. For example, large gravesites of sacrificed children in Aztec and Mayan civilization ruins. No signs of down syndrome in massive grave sites of dead children dating back hundreds of years?
I'm debating for debate sake. I have no hard line stance or investment in what the right answer is.
I read it somewhere ages ago. Didn't save it. When you inject children with the most inbred dna possible, which you know has that, then you end up with white children with down syndrome.