//
you're reading...
Chimerism, DNA Homosexuality, Gay, Gay Agenda, Genetic Homosexuality, Homosexuality Chimerism

Homosexuality and Chimerism, Rethinking Our DNA


Why is such an obvious possible biological cause of homosexuality being ignored?

It has perplexed me for a number of years now that the scientific community has not come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predominately genetically based. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in reproductive genetics to connect the dots and come to a conclusion which would be relatively simple with today’s technology to confirm.

11178358_877357808978379_1693305498939131232_n-1 I first became aware of the possibility of proving a genetic basis for sexual orientation in 1991, after reading the work of Dr. Simon LaVey; a Cambridge and Harvard educated neuroscientist who had shown anatomical differences in the hypothalami of deceased homosexual men who had succumbed to A.I.D.S.. His findings demonstrated that the hypothalami of the gay men studied were consistently the same size of a female.  The study had a small sample group, because of course there just aren’t that many gay men offering up their corpses for necropsies on a daily basis. The study was derided by many in the scientific community and not a tremendous amount of attention was given to it as the years went by. About a decade ago though I had my own eureka moment when I learned more about genetics and the existence of chimerism, mosaicism, vanishing twins and the occurrence of  microchimerism between mothers, their children and transplant recipients. It didn’t take long after learning about these naturally occurring phenomena to put 2 and 2 together.

The vast majority of homosexuality is likely the result of chimerism.

I will try to break it down in as few words as possible how chimerism is likely the most common cause of non-traditional sexual orientation or sexual identity. Not everyone is running around with just one set of DNA. Nope, many of us unknowingly carry blue prints from not just one plan but two and sometimes even more individuals. How does this happen? Well it’s pretty interesting. Many times women produce more than one egg during ovulation. As a matter of fact, many pregnancies are multiple gravid in the beginning, it’s just that not very many second or third eggs are viable and don’t make it to implantation. So when these other embryos break apart on their little trip down the fallopian tube, cells from the demised gamete can come in contact with a viable one. When this occurs, often times the viable blastocyst absorbs and incorporates the DNA of the non-viable twin into its own structure. It’s why you see people occasionally express these traits as an odd colored eye or a shock of blonde hair in a scalp dominated by brunette. Most times it’s not noticeable at all because where this DNA has been incorporated isn’t seen. There are cases of women whose reproductive organs are not their own but that of an unborn twin. Imagine going to have genetic testing to see if your children are a match for a kidney transplant only to find that you’re not a genetic match with your child. Then being told that they are only a close relative because the ovaries which produced them belonged to your unborn sister. This was the case for one 52-year-old woman suffering from renal failure. Read the case study here. There have been multiple cases discovered in recent years of mothers who have given birth to the children of their own unborn twin as in the case of Lydia Fairchild.

How to recognize a chimera? Most times you can’t.

Animals born in large litters are more chimeric than humans. Cats are a good example of this. Male calico cats and male tortoise colored cats are chimeras. They’re expressing the female coat patterns but retain the sex organs of the dominant male DNA. In humans sometimes you’ll see subtle things like dark patches of skin which tan differently than other body parts, elaborate mosaic patterns of different colored skin and even the occasional supernumerary nipple. Some of them are striking to look at.

Epidermal mosaic skin pattern

Epidermal mosaic skin pattern

Mike Scherzer professional baseball pitcher, chimera

Mike Scherzer professional baseball pitcher, chimera

230px-Trzeci_sutek

Supernumerary Nipple

What happens when your opposite sex fraternal twin is incorporated into your DNA?

Most of the time it’s not going to cause anything obviously different. The cells are going to be incorporated into places that have no real effect on how you live or function. You may have a few cells here, some skin patches there, a kidney with opposite sex DNA etc. However if those opposite sex DNA cells happen to form a significant portion of a gland or say the hypothalamus, which is the brain’s link to the endocrine and pituitary system (the drivers of sexual arousal and orientation), then you’re going to have to expect there to be some differences in behavior and drives. This is the most likely place for twin DNA to induce a sexual preference or inclination inconsistent with phenotype. Remember, phenotype is not necessarily the same as genotype. You may appear to be one thing but genetically you may have many more things hidden inside which are unobservable. So with many homosexuals what you have is a predominate gender being overridden by a hypothalamus of an opposite sex twin driving the endocrine system. It’s pretty elementary. Let’s face it, gay people, the majority of them have physical appearance, mannerisms and interests which mimic the opposite sex. Sure not all of them do. Occasionally you’ll see über masculine males or very feminine women whom you cannot distinguish on sight as being gay, but most of them you can pick out of a crowd as being not like the others. It’s pretty obvious. Surely you have also observed the oddball effeminate straight males and the super masculine females who are not homosexual but sure as heck look and behave as if they should be. It’s just that they’re expressing secondary sex characteristics and behaviors of underlying opposite sex DNA, but the brain centers which determine sexual orientation are not involved. Think of the “swishy” guy who loves antiques, interior decorating and dapper clothes, drinks his tea with his pinky in the air but is a voracious womanizer. How about Amelia Earhart or the 1930’s golf phenom Mildred Ella “Babe” Didrikson Zaharias. Both of those women were so butch it hurt, but they were straight as arrows. They as many others are expressing secondary sex characteristics and mannerisms of their hidden opposite sex DNA without having that same DNA involvement in the centers which control sexual desire and preference. You are going to find people who possess language and reasoning skills of the opposite sex probably far more often than nontraditional sexual preference in people with chimeric DNA. Whole regions of the brain could be peppered with or even completely that of an opposite sex twin. Hence we see males who are much more like a woman in their emotional responses, artistic expression and writing or women who express the traits common to males such as high mathematical ability or visual spatial acuity. It’s all in where that opposite sex DNA comes to rest. We are not off an assembly line. The idea of “normal” is not normal at all. We humans come in tremendous variety and without it, we would be a homogenous species incapable of great creativity. This mixing of DNA is vital and a reason we have been so creative and successful over time. One of the highest estimates I’ve read is that up to 40% of us carry chimeric DNA. Not only do we carry it from picking it up during gestation but this DNA can be transferred to subsequent generations and pass those traits on long after the first chimera. This is most likely the reason that you will see homosexuality run in families and skip generations. Of course chimerism with opposite sex twins is not going to produce homosexuals every single time. Not even close to it. With up to 40% of us having chimeric DNA,  finding somewhere between 2%-5% of the population having opposite sex DNA residing in just the right parts of the brain to produce homosexual tendencies is a fairly reasonable percentage of occurance. The 40% estimate may even be conservative; “Far more common than large-scale chimerism is microchimerism,chimerism on a tiny scale. Microchimerism can result from bone-marrow transplants, poorly prepared blood transfusions, and twins exchanging cells in utero; there’s also evidence that breast-feeding might pass cells from mother to child, and some scientists speculate that unprotected sex might be a contributor. But by far the most common cause of microchimerism is pregnancy. …. Overall, the placenta allows for a lot of two-way traffic, with fetal cells stealing into Mom, and maternal cells slipping into Child.”

“Chan and Nelson’s team ran DNA tests on the brains of 59 women who died between the ages of 32 and 101. To make things simple, they searched for a gene found only on the male Y chromosome. (Women shouldn’t have any Y-chromosome DNA, so finding it would provide strong evidence of the presence of microchimeric cells.) Overall, the scientists found DNA evidence for male cells in 63 percent of the subjects, distributed in multiple brain regions. One woman who tested positive had died at 94, well past child-bearing age, meaning the male cells had stuck around for at least half a century.” From the article, The You In Me, Psychology Today A study published in 2005, done with women who had never bore a male child showed Y chromosome microchimerism in 21%. Of that group who had never had children even 10% of them had Y chromosome DNA. Abstract: Male Microchimerism in women without sons: Quantitative analysis pregnancy history. These results however are no true measure of the degree of chimeric cells  one may have in the body because only blood samples were used. You would literally have to sample tissues from the entire body to determine  whether or not a person possessed chimeric DNA. Findings of this scale based on blood sampling alone is highly significant. Imagine how many women would be found chimeric if further study was done.

Sure there are some people out there who choose to be gay but it’s a very small percentage and most of them end up going straight at some point in their life when it is truly a choice. That stuff doesn’t stick if it’s not really who you are. I’ve met gay men in horribly repressive societies in other parts of the world. They don’t wish they were that way because it’s not fun being different in those places and can actually get you killed. No one “chooses” that orientation for fun in those types of societies. When it is a choice, it is a small percentage and found in Western societies where homosexuality has become “cool” because it’s been promoted in the media and for political purposes for decades. As far as people who have gender dysphoria, my guess is that they have far more opposite sex DNA as the blue print for their brain. Dissect a few of these males who say they are female postmortem and you’d probably find a much larger corpus callosum and a larger hippocampus. If you’d test these men while still living,  you’d find they’re much more verbal than males and that their verbal activity in the brain is on both sides of the brain instead of being almost exclusively on the right as is the way almost all men verbalize, from a single area. The same goes for women who truly believe that they are male. My guess is that you will find many anatomical and functional differences in their brains as well.

So why hasn’t this all been proven?

It has puzzled me how neuroscientists and geneticists have overlooked something which is so incredibly obvious. Even Simon LeVey who is obviously quite accomplished in his field and still living today has yet to connect the dots. I suppose it is sometimes difficult to see the forest for the trees. However I do think there is something at work in the greater scientific community preventing such  research from being conducted. That is funding. For years now science has been focused on finding the elusive “gay gene”. In my opinion it simply does not exist and the only funding ever given goes to research geared toward the goal of discovering that and only that. Why? Because the probability of discovering what does not exist is zero. It’s a safe investment for the powers that be. They don’t want the organic cause of homosexuality to be found. The same people who bring you the media and politics are the same folks who provide research funding. Universities are granted monies to conduct research which benefits corporate and government interests; and quite frankly a genetic basis for homosexuality does not fit the current social nor political agenda of the West. The gay agenda has been a very popular and useful political tool in not only the U.S. but Europe as well for decades. It’s something they are able to pull out of the hat and have people on both sides of the aisle up in arms over any time they need a good distraction from much more important economic or social problems. Oh and you can almost bet on it that if some gay issue is being run on the news feeds every hour on the hour, that somewhere, some country is being bombed back into the Stone Age. It’s been used as a social engineering tool for a very long time. Not only does it pit people against one another along religious lines but it also as it has been presented, has added to the breakdown of normal societal expectations of family. Family has existed since the beginning of time but how we function as a society today, the idea of family has been reduced to basically  the nuclear family unit and in half the cases in the West has resulted in single parent households. This is not a healthy way to live. The media though keeps a goodly portion of the populace living in fear that somehow “gay” is going to infect everyone, cease reproduction and end life on this planet as we know it. Fear is a control mechanism; fear of poverty in old age, fear of other races, fear of immigrants, fear of war, fear of other religions and of course fear of gays among other things. The distraction and division has a been at a nauseating pitch for a very long time. Homosexuality has just been used as an additional tool in the trick bag of the oligarchs. I am not insinuating that the gay agenda and its almost ubiquitous presence in entertainment and the greater media is the cause of the demise of traditional family values and expectations at all. I am though pointing out that it has been a contributing factor in a very long list of assaults on family by the powers that be over the previous century and then some. The thrust of all this social engineering, its true goal was always to break down the family unit, leaving a large portion of the population without the support systems which extended families provide. This has also been done on the community scale as well. The idea of community now does not include neighbors who help and rely upon one another as they did a century ago. We hardly know our neighbors because our lives in modern society are primarily taken up with working an inordinate number of hours to support lifestyles only possible by incurring massive amounts of debt. That is an idea which has also been engineered into society over the past 70 years or so. The ultimate goal of all this has been to produce a society heavily reliant upon the state for personal safety and security. It has been an exceedingly successful campaign. Homosexuals have always had a place in society. They may not have always had a easy go of it but through their struggles many have been incredible contributors to humanity. Using homosexuality as a social engineering tool though is only effective as long as it is viewed  as a choice. If its genetic basis were proven then it wouldn’t be the titillating hot-button issue that it still remains to this day. No, everyone would have to basically just chalk it up to nature and deal with it as they have to deal with people who have different color eyes, skin, hair, height and weight. Propaganda only works if it is something people appear to choose being. I’m sure within the next 20 or so years it’s going to come to light that the majority of homosexuality and trengenderism is DNA based, but not until after they’ve squeezed every bit of political juice they can out of the LBGT rights agenda much of it to the detriment of greater humanity. We must recognize that humanity is a mosaic and that we all have vital parts to play in it. It’s time to realize the science behind our differences, embrace them and move on together as a species. We must recognize when divide and conquer techniques are being used upon the populace for nefarious purposes. Ignoring or suppressing the genetic basis of homosexuality is just that.

footnote

Footnote August 5, 2015

Since the publication of this article there have been many questions and bones of contention with those who do have some understanding of biology. One of the major questions is, why is this a persistent occurrence in our species when it confers no benefit to survival? Natural selection generally, given enough time purges traits which do no provide advantages and increase the probability of survival of a species. Producing a product which is predisposed to not reproducing would seem to be not only self-defeating but possibly even dangerous to the continuation of a species if it ever caught on genetically. True most non-beneficial genetic traits seem to die out eventually. Homosexuality which is chimeric doesn’t really fit the definition of an inheritable trait. It is not the mutation of a single gene which can be passed down to subsequent generations. It’s not a single thing. It’s part of life’s ability to successfully incorporate more variety into a single organism than meiosis is able to do on its own. Chimerism is an extra added, unexpected bonus of the cycle of life which wasn’t even discovered until 1953 in humans. So what good does this do our species? As the sterile social drones of the honey bee puzzled Charles Darwin, so does homosexuality puzzle many biologists today. We do know that drone bees are absolutely vital to the survival of not only the queen bee but also the entire Genus Apis. How though can a theoretically non-producing individual add value to the species Homo sapiens? It can. There are two areas where we can recognize a benefit to humanity. Forget for a moment that in the last few decades that gay men and lesbians are now having families of their own utilizing various methods to achieve their goals of being parents and raising familiars. Let’s go back to the predominate model of homosexual behavior patterns in societies where marriage and child rearing were not absolutely enforced and many people were allowed to live out their lives as unmarried bachelors, old maids and spinsters. With these people we find a small segment of the population, primarily childless, not burdened with child-bearing and rearing. These individuals not saddled with those responsibilities are a great asset to extended families. They are the ones always available to care for the children of their siblings, the sick and the aged. They are those extra set of helping hands which would not be available if they had families of their own. Good help is hard to find and those families which possessed such would have an advantage over those in which every member’s time and efforts were completely consumed with the care of their immediate children. Not everyone needs to be a breeder to add value. Never in the history of mankind have we ever seen an organic decline in population from lack of breeding. This is the first generation of man who has consciously chosen to drop breeding below replacement levels. We now have artificial stressors on populations which are seriously not only curtailing  procreation, but courting and marriage. Japan is a prime example of this reversal in normal behavior. It has become so expensive and burdensome in Japan to marry and raise children that a certain segment of the young population has just given up on it completely. Many young men now prefer to entertain themselves with relatively cheap or free video gaming, pornography or other electronic entertainment in lieu of dating and marriage. They have also figured out that it’s cheaper to hire a prostitute once a month that dealing with the courting necessary to find sex partners. In my opinion this is a far greater problem than the existence of homosexuals in society. If this continues on it would be a self-limiting extinction pattern of breeding.  Debt and technology are proving to be a far greater prohibition to birth rates than the condom or pill ever could have been. This disturbing trend which starts in Japan in the late 1980’s after their economic collapse is now spreading to all of the Western nations. Birth rates in the U.S. and all over Europe are now well below replacement rates. Global population growth is about to peak and head in the opposite direction in the next few decades. That being said,  the presence of homosexuals historically have never had any effect on population growth rates and it seems that the percentage of homosexuals has been rather consistent throughout mankind’s existence. They never took over and they’re never going to take over because it’s not a single gene causing it which can be passed down. If it were, I’d say that considering the successes of gays people throughout history would have made them tremendously sought after and their progeny would have created a whole slew of little gay offspring in far greater numbers than we see today. I say this because no matter how you slice it, there’s always a large percentage of people who are gay which do engage occasionally in heterosexual activity and yes, produce children. You know what they say, “Instant heterosexual, just add alcohol and flattery.” Did I say homosexuals and successful? Yes. This not so unique occurrence of nature’s ability to combine even more diverse DNA into a single individual sometimes confers special gifts and abilities to those with chimeric DNA.  It can produce an individual whose mind is capable of thinking and interacting in different ways from those who are divided more specifically into male and female modes of thought and behavior. It’s not just homosexuals though. It’s anyone who is carrying mixed sex DNA who can display many of the characteristics being described. You don’t have to be gay to benefit from two different blue prints. Imagine a world where everyone was controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain. Imagine a world where everyone was controlled by the right hemisphere. One would be dominated by a group of right-handed, rigid, wordy, mathematicians living in square building. The other a place of left-handed artists and musicians who could remember every face they ever met and lived in fabulously decorated mud huts. Just as we have variety in brain hemisphere dominance and variation in the connectivity between those hemispheres; mixed sex DNA can provide our species with even more creative thinking, balanced and expanded by different blue prints running different parts of the brain. Of course this isn’t always going to be the case. It’s only going to be the rare individual who displays really exceptional gifts. When it all comes together just right though the results can be pretty spectacular. Some of the most celebrated thinkers, inventors and artists throughout history have been homosexual. These individuals have had far more impact on humanity than the next 100 million people whose sole contribution to society was to produce more little consumer offspring.  If you look at the works produced by some homosexuals down through the ages and erased them from history this would not be a place you would recognize. For a recent example, blot out Alan Turing and you wouldn’t be reading this blog right now. You’d be lucky if you owned a calculator at this point let alone a personal computer, or a cell phone. I could write volumes on the number of significant, paradigm shifting inventions and other contributions to society by homosexuals which have shaped today’s world. Not being a breeder does not negate one’s importance to a species which relies upon its wits for survival. Chimerism is not some useless anomaly which adds no value. Chimeric people have probably played some of the most incredibly vital  roles in the advancement and survival of mankind. We should be grateful for them.

Update Sept. 20, 2015

I came upon a fairly recent study which showed that of 120 women who were studied, none of which had bore a male children,  21% of these women presented with Y chromosome microchimerism. Opposite sex DNA is not an uncommon occurrence in humans. It’s frequent. Even in this group, the portion which had never had a child a child at all presented with 10% those harboring Y chromosome DNA.

From:

Male microchimerism in women without sons: quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history.

Yan Z, et al. Am J Med. 2005.

RESULTS: Male microchimerism was found in 21% of women overall. Healthy women and women with RA did not significantly differ (24% vs 18%). Results ranged from the DNA equivalent of 0 to 20.7 male cells per 100000 female cells. Women were categorized into 4 groups according to pregnancy history. Group A had only daughters (n = 26), Group B had spontaneous abortions (n = 23), Group C had induced abortions (n = 23), and Group D were nulligravid (n = 48). Male microchimerism prevalence was significantly greater in Group C than other groups (8%, 22%, 57%, 10%, respectively). Levels were also significantly higher in the induced abortion group.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/

In another recent study it has been shown that of women who have given birth to male children, up to 63% of them are Y DNA micro chimeric.

From:

A Pregnancy Souvenir: Cells That Are Not Your Own

“The new study suggests that women almost always acquire fetal cells each time they are pregnant. They have been detected as early as seven weeks into a pregnancy. In later years, the cells may disappear, but sometimes, the cells settle in for a lifetime. In a 2012 study, Dr. Nelson and her colleagues examined the brains of 59 deceased older women and found Y chromosomes in 63 percent of them. (Many studies on fetal microchimerism focus on the cells left behind by sons, because they are easier to distinguish from the cells of their mother.)

Experts now believe that microchimerism is far from rare. “Most of us think that it’s very common, if not universal,” Dr. Nelson said. But it remains quite mysterious.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/a-pregnancy-souvenir-cells-that-are-not-your-own.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0

October 9th, 2015

I believe this goes further to support the hypothesis of chimerism and homosexuality. If the hypothesis is correct then, of course they’re going to find different methylation patterns between gay and straight twins; because the gay twins are expressing the DNA methylation characteristics of chimeric XX chromosomes. They’re not going to show up on every single test because they’re not always going to be present in all sampling; hence the 70% rate of accuracy.

Epigenetic Algorithm Accurately Predicts Male Sexual Orientation

Findings Reported at ASHG 2015 Annual Meeting

BETHESDA, MD – An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy, according to research presented at the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore.

http://www.ashg.org/press/201510-sexual-orientation.html

 

Discussion

28 thoughts on “Homosexuality and Chimerism, Rethinking Our DNA

  1. Reblogged this on MERHA.

    Posted by MEHRA Publishing | July 30, 2015, 7:03
  2. Excellent, and fascinating.

    Posted by orenclark | August 1, 2015, 7:03
  3. You mention that gays are basically effeminate. This is true: the studies that LeVay himself conducted show this. However, look back at history and you’ll see that the Greek and Romans were more than happy to have sex with other men. The most likely explanation is that most men are innately bisexual (but current culture prohibits expression of that same-sex attraction) while gays are more of a small gender-nonconforming minority. In fact, the first gay guy who lived in Germany in the 1860’s said as much himself: he considered gays to have the “soul of a woman in the body of man” a sort of transgender-lite.

    Anywho, I wrote a free book on this topic that will perhaps be of interest to you or your readers (it goes into detail about my claims above): http://grero.com/

    Posted by Andras Konya | August 2, 2015, 7:03
  4. The words “cells from the demised gamete” shake my confidence in the expertise of the writer.
    A gamete not only does not have cellS, it has only half the usual complement of DNA.
    That’s pretty basic.
    Are there other simple mistakes in the article?

    Posted by Rik Smoody | August 7, 2015, 7:03
  5. Hi Kristina, You have identified chimerism’s formed by multiple dominant eggs produced during a single ovulation that did not produce fraternal twins or triplets and were incorporated into the final ovum as a potential cause of homosexuality. I find the fact that you have delved into advanced reasoning in this matter to be interesting. Almost all “professional” research is porcupine by design which limits examination to individual needles. I am a multi-dimensional aggregator who specializes in solving complex problems by compiling as many of the needles together from peer reviewed research to create logical proofs. My present field of concentration is Procreation Science of which chimerism, microchimerism and sexual preference are a part. Perhaps, we can have a conversation.
    Thank you,
    Stuart J. Bloom
    If you google me, you will see several patents in a few fields.

    Posted by Stuart J. Bloom | January 3, 2016, 7:03
  6. Fascinating!!

    Posted by Fiona | January 4, 2016, 7:03
  7. Your article is really fascinating and might explain quite a lot, but please QUIT referring to transgendered people as “females who want to be males/males who want to be females”. It’s downright insulting, especially so in an article that is aimed to promote a healthy view on biologic diversity.

    Posted by Chimaira | February 7, 2016, 7:03
  8. I knew it! I had this same epiphany last year!! I was so happy to see that someone else, in the scientific community, had thought of it too. I was thinking I was going to have to hunt down a scientist who was studying chimerism & tell them my hypothesis & hope they didn’t just steal it. LOL!! YES!! I know you are correct, & I’m going to share this everywhere. Thank you for this!! The whole world needs to know this & stop all the LGBT nonsense. Love how you pointed out how it was being used as a distraction. Very keen observation. You are brilliant! Keep up the great work!!

    Posted by Teyah Thorn | February 11, 2016, 7:03
  9. Dear Kristina Bruce, Please give me your mailing address. I want to mail you a paper I just wrote. I write In less scientific terms than you do but, it appears to me that my hypothesis is identical with yours. Please email me at:sharronmontagueloree@gmail.com I also noticed the research done by Dr. Simon LaVey in 1991.
    Until I just now located your paper here, I was alone with my theory. I would love to speak with you on the phone or email you. Maybe my hypothesis will have an added perspective which can help you get this information to the
    world who desperately needs it! My theory: “A surviving twin, at the stage of embryo, fetus or unborn baby, merging with it’s deceased, opposite-sexed twin, can result in the surviving twin eventually becoming transgender or gay.” Kristina I feel so good today, because today I found your paper

    Posted by Sharron Montague Loree | August 17, 2016, 7:03
  10. A blastocyst inside the mother is not the only possible source of genetic material a woman comes in contact. Sperm is a genetic delivery system. These 10% of women who were never pregnant may have had sexual intercourse with a man as a possible source of male microchimerism and the sexual act without protection between males also delivers a genetic package to the receiving partner. This may explain why male homosexuals seem to become more effeminate over time And the receptive partner more-so with their DNA being augmented by DNA including x chromosomes received from their partners.

    Posted by Lori Alayne Weber Miller | October 13, 2016, 7:03
  11. From the perspective of a gay man, this article rings very true to me. I have always known, of course, that I didn’t choose my sexual orientation—especially coming from my Mormon background. But the idea of chimerism didn’t dawn on me until after having a foot zoning session with a woman who claimed that I had a twin early in my mother’s pregnancy. I was a bit skeptical, even though she had proven an uncanny ability to read both my body and personality with incredible accuracy for the previous hour, but it got me researching. I came across vanishing twin syndrome and eventually hit on the theory that VTS and chimerism could be an explanation for homosexuality. Light bulbs went off! Finally, I came across a theory that made sense. The pieces just fell into place. I had always wondered why I had interests and traits that were so clearly feminine but didn’t seem to come from my wanting them or from being environmentally influenced to acquire them. On the contrary, I hated the shame of feeling different, but like it or not, I was! My friends have always been female. I absolutely relate to the way they think, and I find the way men think quite foreign at times. Why? Doesn’t it just make sense that part of my brain is genetically female? And that it could very well have come from a vanishing twin? It does to me. Kristina, I praise your work and thank you for it. Your article provides a well-written explanation in a very readable way. Outstanding!

    Posted by Jeff | December 10, 2016, 7:03
    • Thank you for your kind commentary Jeff. I hope that this hypothesis is a comfort for many people. If it is correct, it would dispel a tremendous amount of accusation, questioning and myth for many out there. I hope that someday soon the proper research will be done to either prove or disprove it.

      Posted by Kristina Bruce | December 11, 2016, 7:03
  12. Great article. I’m just a mom of a 14yr. old transgender son and I am trying to convince my Dr. that my child is a chimera. We did genetic testing today on blood only and my Dr. informed me yesterday that mosaic is the same as chimera and he is so WRONG! I am hoping for a lucky strike with the blood being the only thing tested. My child has many signs of having had a vanishing twin. Birth issues my child had were, battledore placenta, left-handed, heart murmur, cerebral palsy and labial fusion. These occur more frequently in twins. During the pregnancy I measured 16 weeks at 10 weeks. 3 weeks later I measured 15 weeks. Too bad my Dr. thinks I’m crazy. I would love to give my child some peace of mind that he is perfect. I believe there must be a genetic reason for a child who is such a girly girl and loved being a girly girl to hit puberty and do a complete 180 in the opposite direction.

    Posted by Brandy Goodloe | February 1, 2017, 7:03
    • Your physician seems to think that his medical degree has made him an expert on genetics. Unfortunately that white coat doesn’t make him an expert on the topic and he is incorrect.

      I don’t know if you’ll be able to get a hit on chimeric DNA from a blood sample alone although it is possible. You just never know where those chimeric cells are going to show up in an individual. I really do believe though that both homosexuality is dependent upon either the influence of female hormones feminizing the male hypothalamus or chimeric cells in that region producing a female sex drive in males. In the case of transgenderism, it may be that even more regions of the brain are likely involved. As far as lesbianism goes, it is my contention that it cannot exist without chimerism because there is just no way to masculinize a female hypothalamus without the existence of XY DNA being in the mix.

      Next time you see your doctor, maybe you should give him a copy of this paper from Colorado State University breaking down the difference between mosaicism and chimerism?

      http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/chromo/mosaics.html

      Posted by Kristina Bruce | February 6, 2017, 7:03
  13. I believe it is the aborted fetal cells in vaccines (read the vaccine inserts) that is causing chimerism more than anything else. We’re combining our DNA with the DNA of other organisms with these vaccines and also stem cells…who knows what we’re really doing to ourselves and our future generations.

    Posted by Kay | April 4, 2017, 7:03
  14. Do you have research on human and animal DNA from vaccines causing chimera and leading to gender identity issuers?
    Knowing these DNA are in our vaccines and being injected in the US at the rate of 72 vaccines by age 18, it seems there has to be a relation

    Posted by thefitbooth | April 18, 2017, 7:03
    • No, I am not aware of any research linking horizontal gene transference to mixed sex chimerism. It is highly unlikely that whatever minute amount of DNA which could possibly occur from injected foreign DNA/rNA material would ever produce any effect on sexual orientation. While it is possible for exogenous DNA/rNA to be taken up and incorporated by the body from injection, blood to blood transfer and possibly even from the food we ingest, the amount of DNA/rNA involved is inconsequential as to the function of complex organisms. For something to effect sexual behavior, would require significant portions of the brain to be transformed by exogenous, opposite sex DNA. This just is not possible from any minute amount of genetic material found in vaccines.

      Horizontal gene transference is most common between human and parasites which we are frequently infected with. If you look at evolution of species, over millions of years, bacterias, yeasts and parasitic DNA become incorporated into the genomes of most eukaryotes. Vertebrates are the result of hundreds of millions of years of multiple organisms living together and sharing DNA. Your entire body wouldn’t’ be possible without gut bacteria which aren’t your own or the bacteria and parasites which live on your skin. It all works together to keep you viable. Those little things are your digestive system and part of your immune system, both inside and out. Without them we die. They and us are also continually exchanging DNA.

      https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-017-3649-y

      Posted by Kristina Bruce | April 20, 2017, 7:03

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Homosexuality and Chimerism, Rethinking Our DNA - ClearNFO - August 1, 2015

  2. Pingback: Womb twins | intradimensions - February 23, 2016

  3. Pingback: It’s Genetical | - August 17, 2016

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: