Adam Lanza’s DNA To Be Studied In Search Of ‘Killer’ Genes

If certain mutations or abnormalities are blamed for Lanza’s actions, what will we do with other individuals who possess them? The Christian Post reports on a possible preview of witch hunting in the 21st century:

An “Adam Lanza DNA study” has been given the go ahead to see if there is anything inside his genetic makeup that could have given any indication of the horrific acts he was capable of ahead of time.  The study, which is believed to be the first of its kind, is expected to delve into Lanza’s DNA in the hope of finding any kind of genetic abnormalities or mutations in his DNA.

The study has been commissioned by Connecticut Medical Examiner, H. Wayne Carver, who has reached out to geneticists at the University of Connecticut to carry out the study. It is expected that the geneticists will analyze his entire genome in huge detail to try and find any mutations.

75 Comments on "Adam Lanza’s DNA To Be Studied In Search Of ‘Killer’ Genes"

  1. wfzlsster | Dec 29, 2012 at 9:45 am |

    At this point there are too many questions about the official story to be sidetracked by this. This kid is starting to look like a patsy.

  2. Cloudnearly9 | Dec 29, 2012 at 10:31 am |

    This sounds like a terrible idea. As we learn more about genetics it became obvious that an individual can have a disease without the generic markers for it, and visca versa an individual can be perfectly healthy while still having a genetic markers for disease and mutations. Witch hunt was an apt metaphor, we as a society have to put our foot down somewhere on the line. Anyone see gattaca? I don’t want to live in a genetic profiled world. We are more than the sum of our base pairs. Don’t let materialists squash human spirit under the guise of science. The whole sandy hook situation reeks of false flag, with all due empathy an respect to the families of those slain. We should ask the hard questions regarding the *propoganda* surrounding it- out of respect for those lost.

  3. There might be a difference between “those more readily capable of violent acts” and “normal” people, but I can save them some money on their search to find the difference between the “Dangerous Psychopaths” and the “Glorious Guardians of the Realm”.

    The difference is Political.

    • Difference is real, the absence of an autonomic empathic response and an extreme shallowness of emotions (basically the majority of emotions are simply absent). Psychopaths read the absence of emotions as them being in far greater control of their emotions, they are superior, rather then the reality of them be inferior ie subhuman as human emotions define humanity.
      As such genes will play a real role in the early detection of psychopaths, after all they have a huge base to compare them to. Psychopaths 1% of the human population, 15% of the prison population. Early detection would save a huge number of victims.

      • You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.

        • The “dangerous psychopaths” and Glorious Guardians of the Realm” probably have identical genomes; white knights and evil bastards tend to have a few key things in common; not least, purity of purpose and fanaticism. Whether they use their inner fire to protect or destroy (same thing again, depends on what perspective you’re taking) the make-up is much the same.

      • Calypso_1 | Dec 30, 2012 at 1:44 am |

        You will find the biggest ‘victim’ population of the aggregate of ‘psychopaths’ is themselves. The success rate of their antisocial behaviors is staggeringly low and falls well within standard distribution for functional IQ’s.

        A reduced empathic response or shallowness of affect is not absence of emotions. Some individuals with these characteristics demonstrate extreme emotional experiences outside the boundaries of ‘normative’ psychologies.

  4. Given this was reported by the Christian Post, I assume they are looking for Satan DNA

  5. To make this more disturbing, read the article, then read the last two projects on this website:

  6. Rex Vestri | Dec 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    This is what they are looking for…

  7. wonder if this is one of those genetic propaganda studies that support eugenics, will they forgot to include enviromental gene expression factors(epigentics)? doubt so, better to blame it on “the black” or “born killer” than face the data that each dollar invested in education and quality of life saves ten times the amount of money for crime prevention/prison system/crime material loses.

  8. The scientist say that caucasians DNA is polluted.

  9. Ted Heistman | Dec 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm |

    This is one reason that some of the ideas coming out of Neo Atheism is actually dangerous. Biological Determinism over Free Will. Free will is an assumption free societies are based on.

    People have diverse genetic make ups and personality types. A person with one confluence of tendencies could be a Fire Fighter or an armed robber. A person with another set of tendencies might be an accountant or a criminal specializing in fraud.

    • Antediluviancurrent | Dec 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm |

      Well said. We can thank scientism for this. The ‘good-old’ days of 19th century eugenics and social darwinism are back.

      • We can thank genes for the ticking time bombs of psychopaths, what is, is. Reality here, only psychopaths protect psychopaths. Hmm. genetic analysis in 19th century eugenics, your lies know no bounds.

        • Antediluviancurrent | Dec 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

          Wow, lots of wild claims you’re making there. Not sure if trolling or just Dawkinsian. I’m sure nature vs. nurture debates on reddit are fun, but the scientific community gives credit to both in our development as human beings. Enjoy your simplistic determinism.

        • No one said that there was genetic analysis in the 19th century. The analogy was to the politics behind the science, which is generated by a desire to predict and control bad events before they happen. Whether you do it by locating some anomaly on a genome or by quoting Nostradamus, it’s still fascist. We can no more predict who the next killer of children will be as we can the weather in August of 2013 in Madagascar. To think we can do so, is just fear driving people who can’t cope with the unpredictability and tragedy built into human life.

      • bobbiethejean | Dec 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm |

        Neither one of those things have anything to do with science. Science is a merely a tool we use to understand the universe around us. Social Darwinism is a political construct that is similar to Darwinism ONLY in name and eugenics is the misuse of science for a sociopolitical agenda.

    • bobbiethejean | Dec 30, 2012 at 10:24 pm |

      You say it’s a dangerous idea but what if it’s true? Then what? Should we pretend it’s not true and go on about our business? And free will. Boy, that’s a can of worms in and of itself.

  10. "Big" Richard Johnson | Dec 29, 2012 at 3:35 pm |

    Nah. He was just a sperg.

  11. WTFMFWOMG | Dec 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

    Well, duh. The kid was a typical autistic loner, very smart, etc. What kind of drugs did the docs put him on? Let me guess… was it an SSRI? Oh, that couldn’t be the cause, because of all the drug ads we see on TV, and the drug companies inspire honesty. Oh, really? Read this. This is not an isolated incident:

    Maybe they ought to list “mass murder” as a potential side effect. I can tell you from personal experience, the SSRI I tried is an emotion eraser. It took me 4 days to come down from half a tab of Zoloft, a doctor’s prescription. At least I had zero anxiety about the rare side-effect I suffered, a blood pressure of 205/110. It was the most frightening, personality changing experience I ever endured. I’d rather be addicted to opiates. If I wanted a remorseless army of killers, unafraid to kill innocent people, I’d condition them with SSRIs. Nobody in the media will touch this with a ten foot pole, because of the millions the medical industrial complex spends on advertising. There will be more incidents, then Americans will turn in their guns, and although we won’t have any more school shootings, violent crime against unarmed citizens will increase (+89 percent in Britain since the gun ban) and we will look to the government to rescue We the Sheeple once again.

    • lazy_friend | Dec 29, 2012 at 5:17 pm |

      I agree, inhibiting serotonin seems to be the opposite of what I want to do for a depressed person. Not feeling anything is not the opposite of depression. Doctors like to prescribe SSRI’s because of the FDA regulations restricting their sales by just anyone, which means they and the pharmaceutical companies that make them can make big profits on the monopoly that is conventional western medicine (Capitalism at its worse). I say boost serotonin, with proper diet, omega 3 fatty acids and herbs like Saint Johns wort. Some say the Buddah reached expanded consciousness because of all the figs he ate to survive sitting under that tree. Figs boost serotonin. I don’t know about the guns tho, It’s hard to defend from a surprise assault even with a gun, and I have one. I just don’t know If it will do me any good if someone tries to rob me when I have my guard down, I am not a professional quick draw. I think combating poverty to make sure people are not desperate in the first place will lower petty crime, also legalize pot and personal cultivation, so junkies don’t have to rob you if they need a hit of something. Just a theory.

      • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 30, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

        Serotonin is an anti-metabolic stress-associated substance, the opposite of what you (and the general public) have been led to believe. SSRIs induce suicides by INCREASING serotonin activity, by inhibiting its catabolism. Similarly omega 3 fats are anti-metabolic, immune suppressive, and extremely inflammatory. Aside from specialized drug-like uses, like suppressing immune response during transplants, no one should be taking fish oil or flax oil or any other liquid varnish-forming oil.

        Serotonin antagonists (or relative antagonists), like LSD and MDMA, are effective anti-depressants. So is living in a society that values human life, but most of us don’t have that either.

        • lazy_friend | Dec 30, 2012 at 4:28 pm |

          I totally disagree. SSRIS stop the cell from drawing serotonin back in, keeping the system overloaded with serotonin, creating tolerance due to down regulation of receptors, and thats what give you suicidal thoughts, since you wont be able stimulate the receiving neurons efficiently . All the herbal serotonin booster I take lift my mood almost instantly, and give me no negative thoughts, because they boost serotonin release but still let cell draw it back in, some inhibit serotonin uptake like saint johns wort but not to the extreme like SSRIs. The difference between a drug and poison is minimal, most of the time. Rhodiola Rosea also works well, but the brain will down regulate receptors, so occasional breaks are advised. Its a slight boost, not a dump of serotonin into the system and then inhibiting its uptake, creating severe down regulation. Today I played 4 hours of soccer at a semi pro level; what can you do with your mental health and motivation? Neuroscience is not fully understood, but serotonin is one of the chemicals that have a lot of study behind it. I think dopamine tolerance or disorder plays a much larger role in an individuals depression than serotonin, if you cant get chemically rewarded you will think of killing yourself. If the problem is severe lack of serotonin, than SSRI’s might actually help by keeping the serotonin you do produce in the synapses, but when you have enough serotonin and depression is being caused by another neurotransmitter being off kilter, It actually inhibits the processing of serotonin by flooding the system, causing severe receptor down regulation due to over stimulation, thus essentially “inhibiting” serotonin, making things worse. I rest my case.

          Fish oil is great and fish in general is great for my digestive system. I don’t know where you are getting this info about fish oil being inflammatory, seems fishy to me.

          “Among the fatty acids, it is the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) which possess the most potent immunomodulatory activities, and among the omega-3 PUFA, those from fish oil—eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)—are more biologically potent than α-linolenic acid (ALA). Some of the effects of omega-3 PUFA are brought about by modulation of the amount and types of eicosanoids made, and other effects are elicited by eicosanoid-independent mechanisms, including actions upon intracellular signaling pathways, transcription factor activity and gene expression. Animal experiments and clinical intervention studies indicate that omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties and, therefore, might be useful in the management of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.”

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 30, 2012 at 6:51 pm |

            The average american consumes large amounts of omega 6 polyunsaturated fats, which are even more inflammatory and anti-metabolic in many ways than the omega 3s, in which case a high 3:6 ratio might be seen as beneficial.

            However, all polyunsaturated fats produce a chronic inflammatory state when consumed – their double bonds invariably get oxidized, and the resulting molecules are highly inflammatory. They also strongly inhibit the enzymes that normally convert saturated fats into omega 9 fatty acids, esentially replacing all of your ‘human’ fats with seed or fish fats, which are not stable in a hot, oxygen-rich environment like our bodies. Have you ever left a fish oil capsule out in the heat? Do it, see what happens.


          • lazy_friend | Dec 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

            This is incomplete. Fatty acids are essential but of course everything in excess will cause problems. The evidence towards their benefits is overwhelming, unlike the evidence for SSRI’s. Fish is great for you and you don’t need to be a PhD blow hard to know that. Take one pill a day and it will be ok, especially if you don’t like eating fish.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:17 am |

            Polyunsaturated fats are not essential. If there are no exogenus PUFAs the desaturase and elongase enzymes will produce them ‘on demand’.
            Polyunsaturated fats may obscure nutrient deficiencies, by lowering the rate of protein turnover and demand for vitamins. In the long term (longer than is measured by any studies) this invariably ends badly. Western explorers noted that eskimo women (who ate lots of fish) aged prematurely.

            The benefits of fish are not due to its polyunsaturated fats.
            I consume as little PUFA as I can, and eat many grams of coconut oil a day. Coconut oil stays fresh indefinitely, since coconuts grow at temperatures near those of the human body, in relatively high-oxygen environments (as opposed to fish and seeds); it’s almost pure saturated fat and has very few double bonds that can be oxidized. On the other hand, open a capsule of fish oil and put it in a warm place for a few hours, see what happens.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 6:03 am |

            fatty acids are fragile compounds. Fatty acids need to be protected by anti oxidants but are still essential. If you leave a lot of things out in the open and on the heat they will cook. The japanese eat tons upon tons of fish and they live a long time and some do cubans and greek that live for a very long time. Omega 6 fats are bad but not omega 3 in proper amounts and since your sources peat i cant really taken you seriously now. I am 27 and i dont look a day past 18 and play 5 to 8 hours of pretty hardcore drums almost everyday, i think i am good when it comes to aging. Coconut oil is also good but many grams is excessive. Fatty acids are sophisticated compounds compared to other nutrients and thats why they are surrounded by anti oxidants in the seed, but that does not mean they are not essential for your neuro system especially.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:47 pm |

            That does not mean they are not essential – they are not essential because they have never been shown to be essential!

            You are still relatively young, and your fruit smoothies no doubt contribute to your ostensibly good health, but in 10 years you will regret having taken fish oil, just like women who take estrogen for ‘menopause’ and SSRI for depression.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 6:17 am |

            Pufas are not created on demand. But you stick to you diet. I am certain that i am very healthy. But i wish you the best, talking about fish oil bores me ive read so much in them that one person will not change my mind. Fatty acids are fragile and need their anti oxidants to work correctly but it does mean they are not essential. I cant stand ray peat, his articles are soo long winded and if someone says they know so much about the cell, but does not know what to eat to keep them healthy there is some thing wrong its a red flag. I take on pill a day just to make sure i get a bit, but i ingest way more anti oxidants to make sure the fatty acids i do ingest stays protected and are able to be utilized. Ray drinks coca cola and tons of coffee to back up his claims. I drink robust fruit smoothies and 1 capsule of fish oil while being able to be very active and young at heart. I think i am doing the right thing.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

            Again, you are denying manifest biochemical reality. You may not ever have heard of desaturase and elongase enzymes, but they do exist, and their role is to lengthen and add double bonds to saturated fats, which are produced through the reduction of glucose. That these enzymes are inhibited by fish oil does not mean they do not exist.

            “Fatty acids are fragile and need their anti oxidants to work correctly but it does mean they are not essential.”

            No; rather, the toxicity of fish oil PUFAs can be alleviated to some degree with antioxidants, but they are still invariably toxic and those antioxidants would otherwise have been put to better use. Again, they have never been proven to be essential. Cells can be grown in culture for many generations without any fats at all, let alone fish oil PUFAs.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:42 pm |

            I also drink ‘robust fruit smoothies’, and I’m for the most part a raw vegan. Your criticisms of ray peat do not apply to me.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 6:25 am |

            I rather listen to cutting edge researcher at harvard than a quak like ray peat. Research ssri’s which are a big problem, essential fatty acids have been beaten to death.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

            Polyunsaturated fatty acids have never been shown to be essential. That line has been ‘beaten to death’ by the fish oil manufacturers, who have an interest in people buying their products. They are not essential in a rigorous scientific sense, as is, say, vitamin C.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:54 pm |

            Also: I am a biologist, and I am able to evaluate nearly everything ray peat says. I am far from uncritical, but there are undeniable biochemical facts that he points to, his personal failings aside. Most notably, he is one of few biologists who have read and understood Gilbert Ling’s revolutionary biophysical research on the structure of living cells, which conclusively disproves the prevailing mechanistic ‘membrane/pump/channel/receptor’ model. This alone makes his articles worth reading.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 8:30 am |

            Just because something stays intact does not mean its good for you, processed food do not rot easily and are horrible for you. That is flawed over simplified logic. Organic foods rot fast if not consumed. Things that break down fast are easier to digest. Aging is something that is triggered by the body with hormones and other chemicals. Stress triggers cortisol that can contribute to aging, and eskimo women are under stress from their hard life, fish helps keep them alive and working. But its not something that is averted because you eat compounds that are hard to breakdown. Plastics never rot and yet you cant consume them. Its better you eat foods that break down fast so your body can easily metabolize them. If you cook something it will oxidize, but your body breaks fatty acids down to simpler compounds before they have a chance to oxidize unlike when you leave it sitting under heat radiation. You body is not a heat lamp. Fry coconut pulp, it will turn black like anything else.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

            You are unscientifically mashing together many different things; oxidative degradation of polyunsaturated fats is NOT the same as their metabolic catabolism. Your mitochondria break down fatty acids from the carboxyl side, while PUFAs are oxidated and fragmented at their double bonds. The substances that form are the isoprostanes, neuroprostanes, and prostaglandins, which are highly inflammatory. This is a chemical fact, it cannot be denied by criticizing the personal life of one researcher. If omega 3 PUFAs produce relatively ‘good’ prostaglandins etc, that’s only true compared to the prostaglandins produced by omega 6 fats, which they replace and dilute.
            Plastic is not coconut oil. Coconut oil is very clean, can be oxidized without the need for carnitine, and is a powerful antioxidant, as opposed to long chain PUFAs, which are extensively and indiscriminately oxidized into highly inflammatory molecules. If anything, plastics are more like PUFAs, which are likewise estrogenic.
            Primates and humans owe their large brains to their symbiotic co-evolution with flowering, fruiting plants. Very few primates have ever eaten a fish. It is inconceivable that a toxic, anti-metabolic, anti-thyroid, potentially excitotoxic oil from a cold-blooded, low-metabolic-rate marine animal is essential for the brain development of primates.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 8:36 am |

            Ray peat eats like fat people, not like a nutrition master, and is probably not releasing what he truly does for nutrition. He is totally trolling everyone that believes in him. Dont be a fool. If anything he is testing how mentally lazy and gullible people are, and is conduction a psychology covert experiment instead of a nutrition revolution. Its misinformation. People love to give up their responsibility to do research to someone with a PHD.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:56 pm |

            People love to read popular science that makes them feel good about things they already do, and to deny actual research, which requires mental energy to critique and assimilate.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 30, 2012 at 8:38 pm |

            as for ray peat

            I really want to give this guy a chance, as he’s coming recommended by two people whose opinions I respect (Oakley and Shaadoe), but in reading thru the link that Shaadoe provides , where Peat answers in detail readers’ emails about his views on nutrition and proper diet, I’m finding myself really puzzled why people are so into this guy?

            1) He recommends pasteurized orange juice and low fat, even ultra-pasteurized milk

            2) He sees nothing wrong with eating white sugar, even calls it a “therapeutic tool” when fruit and honey aren’t available

            3) He states that he is very sedentary

            4) He says he drinks coffee (“cafe con leche”) several times a day

            5) He sees that when he can’t get oranges or orange juice, he drinks “coca cola”

            6) Says he regularly eats ice cream and “cheese cakes”

            This is the point I stopped reading.

            Can someone please explain to me why this guy should not be dismissed as a kook? Why are we taking his advice seriously? Help me understand this.

            This guy is obviously trying to market himself as revolutionary when it comes to nutrition, using the distrust a lot of people have for industry and hard dogmatic science to market himself. Pseudo science and a con artist. Dont just listen to one guy, read everything you can and make your own assumptions. He attacks things that are already understood to create hype and shock value, like that doctor who claims he can cure cancer after you give him all your cash. Shit for a lot of money and fame ill cast you some magick that will turn you into a being of pure light that has a constant internal vivid inner world where you can experience any reality you want at an instant, or at least ill try; no refunds tho.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:17 am |

            I disagree with most of his dietary advice. In terms of molecular biology and biochemistry, however, he is quite insightful. What he says about estrogen, serotonin, PUFA, thyroid hormone, etc. is continuous with the bulk of the scientific literature. At the bottom of each of his articles there are dozens of references, often with abstracts; you don’t need to take his word for it.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 6:04 am |

            He is a con and sites outdated studies.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

            Truth does not expire; a study may be poorly designed or pseudoscientific no matter when it was written, as are the vast majority of the studies designed to sell fish oil. Most of the studies he cites are of high quality, your refusal to read them notwithstanding. Reading a bunch of studies because they assure you that ‘…therefore fish oil may be beneficial’ is worthless (or worse) if you are not able to critically analyze the physiological claims that are being made, and relate them to the biochemical evidence.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

            Not thanks im staying far away from that quack. Dont be a blind fan boy

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

            Bloodletting was also truth at its time. Look how that turned out. Lies dont expire either unless they are exposed. Ray is fooling all of you while you denounce someone with good intentions like me who has nothing to gain from helping. Its a shame.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 3:58 pm |

            Right, and fish oil being beneficial to human health is a lie, and it has now been exposed.
            That you think you have ‘good intentions’ does not justify your denial of biochemical facts that contradict your simplistic, incoherent theory.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

            Fish oil is not that expensive buddy. I bought a bottle six months ago for 8 bucks and i still have a quarter left. marketing would cost way more than 8 bucks for a gigantic bottle.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm |

            Right, which is why it is more cost-effective to fund studies designed to portray fish oil as beneficial, which will reach large numbers of uncritical people through popular science websites and magazines.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

            A bunch of other nutrition experts rave about the benefits of fish oil. The only one I see making in a big deal about is the crazy looking excessive coffee drinking ray peat. who has a phd in physiology not nutrition.

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

            Appealing to authority does not prevent facts from contradicting your theory.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 4:25 pm |

            you act as if you have secret information only ray peat can understands. the guy is a quack and what you saying sounds like a conspiracy theory that is not even popular. I hate conspiracy theories especially when they are not obvious to everyone. I am done with this. I never believe in know it alls. If you are a biologist, why arent you busy doing research and earning money, instead of spending your time on some random alternative news site. Bogus. Good day sir

          • JoiquimCouteau | Dec 31, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

            It’s not ‘secret information’, it’s regular, uncontroversial biochemistry, of which you seem to be completely ignorant. You base your scientific judgements on what you think is ‘popular’ and ‘cutting edge’, as did the proponents of bloodletting.
            As for why I’m here, I occasionally enjoy arguing with random idiots on the internet, fuck you, I’m sure you do much worse things in your spare time.

          • lazy_friend | Dec 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm |

            Its easier to bribe one guy than to bride a whole industry.

        • lazy_friend | Dec 30, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

          Mdma feels great but totally burns you out after. You feel like you will never be that happy again. Its too stimulating and only a party helper and lsd is just too intense for most people.

    • Yeah because the 89% increase you state (No source) is definitely because of the gun ban. It’s more likely that it’s is to do with the import of U.S./Yardie gun-culture associated with the sale and distribution of prohibited products.

      You do realise that the U.S.A. murder rate is over three times that of the U.K. (4.2 per 100,000 vs 1.2 per 100,000, U.N.O.D.C figures for 2012 most recent data) and that very few people in the U.K. had guns before the ban. Try and learn some of the facts before you start spouting N.R.A. type propaganda.

      I agree with you about the S.S.R.Is though nasty things they should just let people smoke a bowl. Adam Lanza would probably been sitting at home still playing C.o.D and eating too much pizza.

    • bobbiethejean | Dec 30, 2012 at 10:32 pm |

      Zoloft almost killed me, twice. I never needed it in the first place. I didn’t have “severe clinical depression.” I had “shitty life” syndrome for which there is no pill. Amazingly enough, when my life stopped being shite, I stopped being depressed.

  12. marklar_primus | Dec 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm |

    Ah yes, the return of eugenics to it’s birthplace – the good old USA. If only Hitler hadn’t stolen the science from us and given it a bad name we might be racially pure by now.

    Spay or neuter your local eugenicist/congresscritter.

  13. What a ridiculous waste of science funding, and a brilliant way to discredit the reputation of all the researchers involved in this project. Way to go Connecticut. I’d have expected this in Oklahoma, but not here.

  14. JoiquimCouteau | Dec 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm |

    Genomes are not static, they change in response to environmental factors. Finding a ‘killer gene’ or a ‘breast cancer gene’ or a ‘schizophrenia gene’ or an ‘obesity gene’ (or the ‘HIV genome’ for that matter) is nothing more than looking for weak correlations between environment-induced genetic shuffling and clinical diagnoses of a condition. It’s not just DNA methylation and histone modification – the sequence of nucleotides itself is variable, DNA -> RNA -> Protein is pure disinformation, which has caused immeasurable benefit to pharmaceutical/biotech industries and inconceivable harm to everyone treated according to that paradigm.

  15. bobbiethejean | Dec 30, 2012 at 10:14 pm |

    Why not analyze the genomes of all known serial killers (if this is possible) and see what commonalities they have (I mean, aside from the obvious)? That might possibly give us some clues. Or maybe not. But I don’t think it hurts to study. Of course whatever we find should be considered in context (environment and circumstance). That is extremely important.

    People need to stop freaking out like the eugenics apocalypse is approaching. There’s nothign wrong with learning things. Who knows what we might find out from such an endeavor. Maybe nothing, maybe something. Ya don’t know unless you look.

Comments are closed.