Suppressed Article in "Human Immunology" From 2001

[amy31416]

Okay, this sort of suppression of information is absolutely insane when you really think about it.


A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

Another link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4706.htm

I'm looking for a link to the original research article, but haven't found it yet. I disagree with the researcher's use of language in some instances, but the results are the results.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics

[pinkmandy]

That's really interesting! Good find, Amy. I hope you can find the actual report, I'd love to read it. :D

[amy31416]

Ooh ooh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena

I have to see if I can access this article somehow: A. Arnaiz-Villena , E. Gomez-Casado , J. Martinez-Laso (2002). Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective. Tissue Antigens Volume 60 Issue 2, Pages 111 - 121

Working on it. . .

ETA: Found the abstract-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12392505

Just a matter of finding or obtaining a free copy now. :p

[pcosmar]

Not surprising really,
from the Biblical/historical record Abraham had 2 sons. Isaac and Ishmael.
Blood relations.

[Minlawc]

I honestly don't see the fact that Jews are genetically similar to the surrounding people, is at all anti-Jewish. Really, it proves that they are connected to the land by heritage, which many Muslims don't believe. Of course, this doesn't excuse what they're doing in Gaza.

You can take the journal as being pro-Jewish, or it could be anti-Jewish, or caved into anti-Jewish terrorist threats. Of course, I could be wrong, which I am many times.

Edit: And I agree, this does kinda prove the Biblical acount as accurate.

[amy31416]

I honestly don't see the fact that Jews are genetically similar to the surrounding people, is at all anti-Jewish. Really, it proves that they are connected to the land by heritage, which many Muslims don't believe. Of course, this doesn't excuse what they're doing in Gaza.

You can take the journal as being pro-Jewish, or it could be anti-Jewish, or caved into anti-Jewish terrorist threats. Of course, I could be wrong, which I am many times.

Edit: And I agree, this does kinda prove the Biblical acount as accurate.

Well sure, some Jews actually have Middle Eastern genetics, I'm sure many don't as well. I don't think the research is anti-semitic at all, however, many Zionists yell "anti-semite" at anyone who challenges whatever information is out there. I think the greater point that is suppressed is that the Jews in Israel are actually no different (aside from religion), from the Palestinians that they treat like animals.

Many Israelis, unfortunately, like to claim or believe a racial superiority. Ain't that some irony?

The worst part is that they water-down actual anti-semitism by crying wolf so often.

[pcosmar]

The only thing with this that I take exception to is the use of the term Palestinians. Like that is a race or national heritage.
They are Arabs.
There never was any nation of Palestine. That ws simply the term given to a large geographical area. It had no government No indigenous people, just nomadic tribes wandering through.
The refuges and squatters that are now called "Palestinians" had their roots in various parts of the Arab world.

Not that mistreatment is justified, but They are not some separate race.

[amy31416]

The only thing with this that I take exception to is the use of the term Palestinians. Like that is a race or national heritage.
They are Arabs.
There never was any nation of Palestine. That ws simply the term given to a large geographical area. It had no government No indigenous people, just nomadic tribes wandering through.
The refuges and squatters that are now called "Palestinians" had their roots in various parts of the Arab world.

Not that mistreatment is justified, but They are not some separate race.

I don't know all of the intricacies of who did/didn't/does/doesn't have rights to the land formerly called Palestine, now called Israel/semi-Palestine. But doesn't logic dictate that if Palestinians (or vagrant Arabs, whatever suits you) are Arabs and they are virtually identical to Ashkenazi Jews genetically, that both sides are fighting against their own? The Ashkenazi Jews are Arabs.

Just as an aside, just because a land was not "governed" doesn't give someone else the right to take it from the people who are living there. We all had our roots in other parts of the world, but nobody has the right to take your land or my property because of it.

[Xenophage]

I honestly don't see the fact that Jews are genetically similar to the surrounding people, is at all anti-Jewish. Really, it proves that they are connected to the land by heritage, which many Muslims don't believe. Of course, this doesn't excuse what they're doing in Gaza.

You can take the journal as being pro-Jewish, or it could be anti-Jewish, or caved into anti-Jewish terrorist threats. Of course, I could be wrong, which I am many times.

Edit: And I agree, this does kinda prove the Biblical acount as accurate.

"Prove" is a rather strong word :p

I fail to see how it is even evidence of the biblical account. What actually identifies someone as Palestinian or Jewish? If you had a Palestinian and a Jewish person in a room and neither had any records of their birth or family ties, nor any memory thereof, how would you identify who was the Jew? The Jew is arbitrarily chosen by God, if you believe the Bible... and inherited sin... and all that other bullshit.

Throw 'em in water and see if he sinks?

[angelatc]

The only thing with this that I take exception to is the use of the term Palestinians. Like that is a race or national heritage.
They are Arabs.
There never was any nation of Palestine. That ws simply the term given to a large geographical area. It had no government No indigenous people, just nomadic tribes wandering through.
The refuges and squatters that are now called "Palestinians" had their roots in various parts of the Arab world.

Not that mistreatment is justified, but They are not some separate race.

You could just as easily say that there isn't any nation of America. This is circa 1920: http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/Palestine_British_Mandate_1920.jpg

You say they didn't have any government, but that's possibly because the British were occupying the territory.

[amy31416]

Thanks for the map, Angel. Now for a little look at a later map...

http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/iran/iran/palaestina-wird-von-der-landkarte-getilgt.jpg

[acptulsa]

I don't know which does more to make this funny in a very sad way. This:


Not surprising really,
from the Biblical/historical record Abraham had 2 sons. Isaac and Ishmael.
Blood relations.

...or the fact that the Jews are defending the very racial bull that the Nazis spewed while sending millions of them to their untimely ends.

[amy31416]

...or the fact that the Jews are defending the very racial bull that the Nazis spewed while sending millions of them to their untimely ends.

That's what I've been saying for eons!

Another irony is that pointing that out gets you labeled as an anti-semite. :rolleyes:

[rpfan2008]

Shepherdic jews maybe, but majority of Israelis are Khazars they can't have similar genetic built as the middle-eastern jews, it's impossible.

[pcosmar]

You could just as easily say that there isn't any nation of America. This is circa 1920: http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/Palestine_British_Mandate_1920.jpg

You say they didn't have any government, but that's possibly because the British were occupying the territory.

Yes and no.
The US is a nation established by the Constitution and recognized world wide. It has been for a bit over 200 years. Short in the history of the world. Before that there were waring tribes of Indians some witch held areas of land,but no cohesive government.
Israel was a nation with government and borders long before Britain had a king. It was invaded and eventually sacked and the people scattered by the Romans.
The area was held by the British (Part of the Roman empire) after WWII, and they gave the area to the Jewish people as a Homeland.
The area was desert wasteland with nothing but a few nomads and bands of thieves that preyed on the trade routes.
The Jewish people rebuilt the area and worked the ground.
It is their land now.

I think some of the leaders make some crappy decisions, and the politics of the area is something we should stay out of.
The people there have always fought each other and will continue to do so.

[acptulsa]

If you question us, you hate us. AIPAC has always been very efficient that way.

How can a whole organization be afflicted with whatever causes passive-aggressive behavior? They're definitely the biggest, baddest perpetual victims the world has ever seen.

[amy31416]

Yes and no.
The US is a nation established by the Constitution and recognized world wide. It has been for a bit over 200 years. Short in the history of the world. Before that there were waring tribes of Indians some witch held areas of land,but no cohesive government.
Israel was a nation with government and borders long before Britain had a king. It was invaded and eventually sacked and the people scattered by the Romans.
The area was held by the British (Part of the Roman empire) after WWII, and they gave the area to the Jewish people as a Homeland.
The area was desert wasteland with nothing but a few nomads and bands of thieves that preyed on the trade routes.
The Jewish people rebuilt the area and worked the ground.
It is their land now.

I think some of the leaders make some crappy decisions, and the politics of the area is something we should stay out of.
The people there have always fought each other and will continue to do so.


But, but, the Palestinian people (vagrant Arabs, whatever works for you) worked the ground for over 1300 years prior to the Brits holding it.

I guess if you think that what the US gov't did to the Native Americans was okay, that you'd think that what Israel has done to the Palestinians is okay. But I don't, not in either case.

In both examples a large number of people were wronged and had their property stolen from them. Just because you don't get an official land deed from a recognized government, doesn't mean you haven't worked the land, or owned it for your entire life.

I guess we need an evaluation of what it means to own land.

[pcosmar]

But, but, the Palestinian people (vagrant Arabs, whatever works for you) worked the ground for over 1300 years prior to the Brits holding it.

I guess if you think that what the US gov't did to the Native Americans was okay, that you'd think that what Israel has done to the Palestinians is okay. But I don't, not in either case.

In both examples a large number of people were wronged and had their property stolen from them. Just because you don't get an official land deed from a recognized government, doesn't mean you haven't worked the land, or owned it for your entire life.

I guess we need an evaluation of what it means to own land.

Show me Somehow that they worked the land.
Most of these folks showed up after the 60s. The few that were there before occupied buildings and areas left when the Romans sacked the place or merely traveled through with herds.
They built no cities, had no industry, no economy.
Most that now claim a heritage there are arab refuges that refused to return to their homelands after the wars in the 60s snd 70s.

[amy31416]

Show me Somehow that they worked the land.
Most of these folks showed up after the 60s. The few that were there before occupied buildings and areas left when the Romans sacked the place or merely traveled through with herds.
They built no cities, had no industry, no economy.
Most that now claim a heritage there are arab refuges that refused to return to their homelands after the wars in the 60s snd 70s.

The olive groves and farms aren't enough? Do you really think that Palestine was just left unoccupied for 1300 years, waiting for the Brits to take it to give it to the Jews?

I don't care if they had NYC or a teepee in the desert. I don't care if they traded in wampum or shekels. I don't care if they made baskets or bayonets. I don't care if they named a specific person president, king or chief.

They were on the land for over 1300 years. American Indians were in North America for who knows how long.

If you subscribe to the philosophy that whomever has the bigger guns owns the property, then you have no legal defense if someone with bigger guns takes your property.

[tmosley]

New Mexico never existed as it's own nation, and therefor Mexicans have a right to slaughter them whenever they want, because it's really their land anyways?

Seriously, this study proves what should have been common sense to anyone looking at the historical situation objectively. When the Jews "left" Israel, they didn't all leave. Many Jews remained, right up until the time that Israel was given to the Jews (despite rampant Zionist terrorism vs the British). Most of the Jews that remained there during that 1900 year intercession converted to Islam during the Arab conquest. That's where Palestinians came from. Anyone who believes that they are squatters from other Arab countries is so biased that they'll never be able to see reason.

Also, there is a persistent myth that the Jews made the desert "bloom" when they got there, when in fact, they simply monopolized the water supply and thus concentrated the water on their own lands, forcing the Palestinians to resort to dry land farming techniques.

[Brian4Liberty]

Bottom line: don't get involved in family fights.