Question On The Theory That Diseases Are Not Genetic

Don Genaro

Jedi Council Member
Hi, I hope I'm posting this in the right area. I was doing a search on the theme of "diseases are for the most part not genetic" and I came across this article. I was inspired to look for this information after reading the articles on SOTT concerning wheat (The Dark Side of Wheat and the related article "Opening Pandora's Bread Box). I had been looking for this information in Spanish for a doctor friend but couldn't find it. Translations of the two articles are forthcoming! Anyway, as I have a limited knowledge of science and so I understand the "general idea of what the article below is saying, the reason I am posting is to ask about a comment left by a reader on the same page which seems like a "reasonable comment" but as I'm not qualified to "comment on the comment". I am also aware that the powers that be are experts in trotting out "experts" to discredit theories and generally sow seeds of doubt! I was hoping that maybe somebody more knowledgable might be able to comment. The article is posted below and the comment is posted afterwards in separate quotes.

The Causes Of Common Diseases Are Not Genetic Concludes A New Analysis
07 Dec 2010

Since sequencing the human genome, genetic researchers have searched intensively but unearthed little evidence to suggest that inherited genes cause common diseases. For such diseases, which include heart disease, stroke, cancers, diabetes, and disorders such as autism, ADHD and dementia, as well as mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression, significant genetic causation can now be ruled out with a high degree of confidence.

The case for a substantial role of genes in susceptibility to the major human diseases is now scientifically refuted argues a groundbreaking new analysis published by the public interest science organization, The Bioscience Resource Project.

The analysis stems from the repeated failure of a new and comprehensive genome scanning method (called Genome-Wide Association studies, GWA studies) to find important human disease genes. It notes that more than 700 GWA studies by researchers from all over the world, covering over 80 different diseases and at a cost of many billions of dollars, have yielded essentially the same result. Of the approximately 1,000 genes identified that confer susceptibility to disease only a tiny handful are of even limited importance. The remainder are so weak in their effects as to be of negligible significance to human health (1).

"Geneticists are repeatedly finding only genes with trivial effects, but since they have a strong incentive not to declare this search over, they are left invoking unlikely hiding places for the important disease genes they have always predicted," says Jonathan Latham, Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project (2).

The Great DNA Data Deficit: Are genes for disease a mirage? which will be published on Thursday December 9th, 2010, points out that the hiding places on which geneticists' hopes are now resting would require genes for disease to be located in places distinct from where almost all other genetic information has so far been found. These hiding places are thus scientifically highly implausible. Equally importantly, The Great DNA Data Deficit also observes that the underlying fundamental weakness of the original evidence for genetic susceptibility to disease is rarely acknowledged. "A genetic basis for susceptibility to common diseases was only ever a hypothesis," says Dr. Latham.

As the analysis also points out, the findings resolve the biggest conundrum in human health. The epidemiological data have always indicated that Western diseases are determined overwhelmingly by diet and other non-genetic factors. Similarly, clinical data have frequently shown that many diseases can be reversed or accelerated by diet and other lifestyle choices. The crucial importance of the new genomic findings is therefore to show that genetic research does not after all contradict these environmental explanations of disease. Rather, it now very strongly supports them.

"Resolution of this conflict has tremendous implications," says co-author Dr. Allison Wilson. "It means human disease is primarily of environmental and not inherited origin. It means that knowledge of the human genome is not going to fulfill most of the medical progress and therapeutic roles it was intended to. And it means that for most people personalized genomics is never going to be useful for predicting the diseases they will develop. And it also means we need to get serious about researching the broader environmental and dietary causes of all these diseases."

The authors, however, believe that the results should not be seen as bad news. "It means that our fate does not reside in disease genes. Our health is in our own hands," said Dr. Latham.

(1) For a detailed description of the failure to find disease susceptibility genes in human populations see: Manolio T. et al. (2009) Nature 461: 747-753 and Dermitzakis E.T. and Clark A.G. (2009) Science 326: 239-240.

(2) This analysis refers exclusively to a genetic basis for common diseases. It does not deny or diminish the significance of monogenic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease or sickle cell anaemia that are scientifically well established. Further, as the article makes clear, there are a very few significant genes for common diseases, such as the breast cancer gene BRCA 1, that have been found.

Source: Bioscience Resource Project
Article URL: _http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/210445.php

And the comment:

Flawed interpretation?
posted by Renee on 13 Dec 2010 at 6:59 am

It sounds like the authors are confusing "genes with trivial effects" with genetic VARIANTS with trivial effects. They are NOT the same. GWAS were designed to test COMMON variation across the genome. More and more, researchers are finding rarer variants that have a significant effect on common disease susceptibility. The more individual genomes are sequenced, the more rarer variants we will find, likely in genes that have already been implicated in the GWAS studies that mentioned above.

My comments are in no way meant to diminish the role of the environment. Environmental factors are critical......but not always on their own (just like genetic factors). It is the INTERACTION between the two that is the key here. Don't dismiss the genetic contribution to common disease because genome-wide association studies haven't found variants with strong effects! We have learned that this was the downfall of the way they have been designed!!!

Thank you in advance!
 
Don Genaro said:
Hi, I hope I'm posting this in the right area. I was doing a search on the theme of "diseases are for the most part not genetic" and I came across this article. I was inspired to look for this information after reading the articles on SOTT concerning wheat (The Dark Side of Wheat and the related article "Opening Pandora's Bread Box). I had been looking for this information in Spanish for a doctor friend but couldn't find it. Translations of the two articles are forthcoming! Anyway, as I have a limited knowledge of science and so I understand the "general idea of what the article below is saying, the reason I am posting is to ask about a comment left by a reader on the same page which seems like a "reasonable comment" but as I'm not qualified to "comment on the comment". I am also aware that the powers that be are experts in trotting out "experts" to discredit theories and generally sow seeds of doubt! I was hoping that maybe somebody more knowledgable might be able to comment. The article is posted below and the comment is posted afterwards in separate quotes....
Thank you in advance!

Actually, the article you quoted is a "news report" apparently based upon this article:
_http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=46

In most cases nobody knows exactly what is going on with the genetic factors or disease processes. We can make statistical associations, but that is not the same thing as actually knowing what is happening. While the science can be very interesting and can produce useful predictions, the conclusions are open to debate. That's science. You can find more to think about (and debate) at the end of the original article.

Was there a particular personal question regarding the causes of disease, which you are researching and for which you would like to hear comments from others?

By the way, there is a new blog post by Sayer Ji, author of the articles to which you referred here.
 
It may be helpful to google "epigenetics".
Every day more evidence is collected to support the theory that genes are "merely" blueprints
that need to be activated to have any effect whatsoever.
This explains the adaptability of the organism to varying environmental factors.
Disease is the reaction of the organism to detrimental intruders triggering a response
according to the condition of the organism.
fwiw.
 
Megan said:
Actually, the article you quoted is a "news report" apparently based upon this article:
_http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=46

In most cases nobody knows exactly what is going on with the genetic factors or disease processes. We can make statistical associations, but that is not the same thing as actually knowing what is happening. While the science can be very interesting and can produce useful predictions, the conclusions are open to debate. That's science. You can find more to think about (and debate) at the end of the original article.


Hi Megan,
Thank you for the clarification and the link.

Megan said:
Was there a particular personal question regarding the causes of disease, which you are researching and for which you would like to hear comments from others?

No, there was no particular personal question. I'm just trying to understand the topic as best I can and since I believed pretty much that diseases were not genetic based on my understanding of the articles on wheat, the comment I quoted was mainly to see if I could learn a bit more on the subject. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I thought I pretty much understood what the original articles by sayer ji were about and then when I couldn't understand the comment at the end of the post it kind of threw me. I think I may have to go back and read sayer ji's articles again!

Megan said:
By the way, there is a new blog post by Sayer Ji, author of the articles to which you referred here.
And thanks for this too! Yes, I had spotted it and it was next on my list but it looks like it will have to wait until I go back over the first two articles :)
 
Leo40 said:
It may be helpful to google "epigenetics".

Thanks, I'll put epigenetics on my homework list!

Leo40 said:
Every day more evidence is collected to support the theory that genes are "merely" blueprints
that need to be activated to have any effect whatsoever.
This explains the adaptability of the organism to varying environmental factors.
Disease is the reaction of the organism to detrimental intruders triggering a response
according to the condition of the organism.
fwiw.

Do I understand you correctly in saying that studies continue to confirm (or at least suggest) that diseases are not genetic but rather the gene's response to attack? Sorry, I'm a bit slow on the uptake!
 
Don Genaro said:
Do I understand you correctly in saying that studies continue to confirm (or at least suggest) that diseases are not genetic but rather the gene's response to attack? Sorry, I'm a bit slow on the uptake!

There are lots of genes and lots of diseases, and a huge amount that is unknown about both. There are, however, specific cases of inherited disease where a specific genetic defect has been identified as the cause.

I spent some time researching CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) because it presents some similarities to my own adrenal hormone issues. CAH has a number of variations resulting from genetic mutations that result in the production of specific defective enzymes that are active in the synthesis pathways of adrenal steroids. You can read a little more about it here.

So it depends on what disease you are talking about. It's one thing to say that someone that synthesizes a defective form of a critical enzyme has a genetic disease, and quite another to say that, statistically, populations that experience a certain pattern of disease correlate with populations that carry a certain form of a gene and therefore the gene "causes" the disease. In the latter case there is a lot of room for error, because "populations" do all kinds of things besides "carry genes."
 
The below article may shed some light on genetic diseases.
The important fact to me is the influence of experience and lifestyle
of your progenitors on the health of your body.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000356
 
Back
Top Bottom