Reproductive mechanisms in humans are so different compared to insects, you can absolutely not make a correlation between findings from a study on insects, and humans. Anything which does not involve at least mammals with similar reproductive systems cannot be cited and is irrelevant. Even when concerning mammals in general as compared to humans, there are enough genetic differences that you cannot make direct conclusions without cross verifying if the results remain the same in humans.
In the 6th study, there are numerous issues, one being that only 120 woman in total were even tested, which is a very small sample size. Only 21% of these woman exhibited any male DNA in the female foetus, so the actual occurrence in the sample size was already small. Law of large numbers suggests these can very well be outliers, you cannot really extrapolate much from this. Perhaps if ever a large scale study would be done with at least 100.000 woman, you could make better conclusions.
Most damning is that the study does not actually make any conclusions where the male DNA actually comes from, it merely analyses whether it was present or not and then theorizes where it may have come from, and from my other reading, there is 0 evidence that sexual intercourse affects possible microchimerism in human pregnancy.
It is only specified that the women who were tested did not have a son, it was not specified if they had been pregnant with a male foetus before. The control group of woman who had only daughters, which were only 26 woman, had an 8% occurrence of male microchimerism, which means only 2 out of the 26 woman had this in the foetus, meaning 24 of the woman had 0% occurrence of male microchimerism in the female foetus. From that alone we can conclude that intercourse prior to pregnancy or during pregnancy has no effect on this, since of course the woman will have sex with her/a partner more than once in most cases before pregnancy, and also after pregnancy.
Even in the cases where it was detected, the maximal value of foreign male DNA that was discovered in the female foetus was 20.7 parts out of 100.000, which is 0.02%, at the highest value, so even when it is found, the actual expressed value is miniscule. From reading, the likely sources of this are when a male foetus is aborted prior to when a woman has a pregnancy with a daughter, or if there was at first a twin pregnancy, but the male twin disappeared early on in gestation, leaving only a single child, or if it was actually a twin pregnancy with 1 male and 1 female twin.
No correlation has been found related to sexual intercourse, and no scientific evidence exists that sexual intercourse or prior partners have any effect whatsoever on the progeny of a woman.
This is also another study I came across just now been a while since I took a look at this stuff. You might find it interesting.
Male microchimerism, the presence of a small number of male cells, in women has been attributed to prior pregnancies. However, male microchimerism has also been reported in women with only daughters, in nulliparous women and prepubertal girls ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"Furthermore, the oldest girls were more likely to test positive for male microchimerism. However, less than half of microchimerism positivity was attributable to these factors. In conclusion, data suggest that male microchimerism in young girls may originate from an older brother either full born or from a discontinued pregnancy or from transfusion during pregnancy. We speculate that sexual intercourse may be important but other sources of male cells likely exist in young girls."
I wonder why older girls would be more likely to test positive. Is it possible older people are more likely to have had sex?
This study is also relatively small around 154 so roughly the same size.
I cant seem to include the image. But something that occured to me is in the chart you see some large outliers its possible assuming you accept telegony as true that these outliers can be explained as girls who have a high body count hence the larger concentration of male cells. This is speculation on my part though
"This prevalence is very similar to what was reported in prepubertal healthy girls used as controls in a study of systemic lupus erythematosus (14.3%).12 Also, it does not differ much from the prevalence in healthy women without sons.3,8,9 Although comparing the prevalence of male microchimerism positivity across studies is hampered by the application of different techniques, similar prevalence may suggest that 1 in 7 girls and women testing positive represents a naturally occurring background level acquired during the fetal state i.e. it is not related to a history of pregnancies. Alternatively, it may reflect that girls in the current study may have had their sexual debut and that sexual intercourse is a source of male microchimerism. "
This sort of backs up your point:
In a recent report on young adolescent behavior in Denmark, 16% of girls aged 14 y and 36% of girls aged 15 y report to have had sexual intercourse.
16 Of these approximately 80% stated that they used condom, which prevents the transfer of male cells.
16 Thus, at most 7.2% of the studied girls would expectedly test Y chromosome positive if sexual intercourse was the source of male microchimerism. We report that 13.6 % test positive indicating that even though sexual intercourse may be involved other sources likely exist which causes male microchimerism in young girls. In accordance with this, other groups have documented male microchimerism in liver and blood from young girls and female fetuses
17,18 as well as in cord blood from female newborns.
19 This raises questions regarding the origin of the male microchimerism.
Yan et al.
9 showed that women without sons were more likely to test male microchimerism positive if they had experienced a discontinued pregnancy. This suggest that women are likely to attain male microchimerism during discontinued pregnancies and our data suggest that these cells originating from older male siblings either full born or from discontinued pregnancies can further be passed on to the next sibling. Gammill et al.
3
This part is also fascinating because its certainly possible though this is more speculation that the aborted fetus was the first in which case how do you explain the presence of these foreign cells.
"Also, we were surprised by the fact that less than half of the observed male microchimerism positivity in young girls can be attributed to either maternal transfusion during the index pregnancy, prior maternal spontaneous abortion, having an older brother, or being 13 y or older at time of phlebotomy."
^well that pretty much sums its up
last bit
"This underlines the need for a better understanding of the sources of microchimerism in this population and likely other populations as well. In conclusion, we show that approximately 1 in 7 nulliparous young girls test positive for male microchimerism, a level similar to what has been reported in healthy young girls and women without sons. We speculate that male microchimerism in these girls may originate from an older brother either full born or from a discontinued pregnancy, from transfusion during pregnancy, or possibly from sexual intercourse. "
Obviously you can read the study for yrself but its certianly fascinating
![Ayleth [TG]](/data/avatars/m/0/293.jpg?1762447538){kind=avatar}
![Voice of Enki [SG]](/data/avatars/m/0/84.jpg?1705131368){kind=avatar}
