Hot Labour news: women who work cause genital defects
Off I go to ruin my baby's genitals!
Oqghod d-dar, O mara, ma jmurx it-tifel tieghek jitwieled minghajr z….. family jewels.
This is Maltastar’s top news item, today (and no mention of The Cruise). THE EXCELLENT MALTASTAR TEAM HAS SOMEHOW SUCCEEDED IN CONFUSING CONGENITAL WITH GENITAL. Read on, and be enlightened. If you have a baby when you’re too old, ladies, it might be born with malformed reproductive organs – according to Labour’s ace reporters.
MALTASTAR NEWS: Women having children later in life may cause genital complications
03 September 2010 18:49
According to the University of Newcastle, women who have children later in their lives may end up having children with genital defects.
This was discovered by scientists who conducted experiments on old and young mice.
It was found that after a certain age, the mice, and humans, stop producing a certain protein that is needed to break up chromosomes during fertilisation.
The research shows that this is vital because all cells, expect one’s genital organ cells, have 2 pairs of each chromosome, thus one pair must be lost.
It seems that the majority of women who choose to have children later on in life, are mostly women who choose to focus the beginning of their lives on their career.
Thus, it might not be that healthy to have a career after all!
A socialist party, blaming women’s careers for birth defects -unbelievable. And that’s to say nothing of Maltastar’s unbelievable stupidity in forgetting that My Dear Leader is the only child of older parents, hence his belief that the sun shines out of his bottom – though of course, we know nothing of any possible genital defects (nor do we want to).
And that’s not all – My Dear Leader’s wife, Deputat Mexxej Michelle, was an elderly primagravida, too. What is Maltastar suggesting here – that she was irresponsible enough to risk damage to her twins’ private parts?
Dear God in heaven, there isn’t a single brain cell to share at the Maltastar offices.
23 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“And that’s to say nothing of Maltastar’s unbelievable stupidity in forgetting that My Dear Leader is the only child of older parents, hence his belief that the sun shines out of his bottom – though of course, we know nothing of any possible genital defects (nor do we want to).”
Dejjem jizolqu fin-niexef tal-Labour! I bet they didn’t even think about Dear Leader when they published that news item.
[Daphne – Mhux ovvja? Nor did they think of Michelle Muscat as an elderly primagravida, because in their minds, Joseph and Michelle are ‘young’. Perhaps they should send the story to Samantha Cameron.]
Of mice and (wo)men!
The way these people write up stories is incredible.
I wonder whether they have at least an O-Level in English.
Maltastar… it should be BRODU STAR!
Please Daphne, kindly excuse my ignorance, but what do you actually mean by “primagravida”?
JC
[Daphne – Elderly primagravida is the term that goes on a pregnant woman’s medical notes if she’s giving birth for the first time in her 30s or older than that. It just means ‘old to be giving birth for the first time – handle with care and be extra vigilant.’]
Primagravida is the medical term used to for the first pregnancy – has no relationship to the age. The term used if the woman is giving birth for the first time after the age of 30 is “elderly primagravida”.
prima = first, gravida = pregnancy (la gravidanza in italian)
actually ‘primagravida’ means being pregnant for the first time. an ‘older primagravida’ means that the woman having her first baby is relatively old. an 18-year old being pregnant for the first time is still a ‘primagravida’!
Primigravida (not primagravida) means “pregnant for the first time”. Age has nothing to do with it.
The rest is true – first-time pregnancies where the woman is over a certain age (and where the pregnancy is likely to be the first and last) ARE given special care and treatment.
Please wait a sec.
Maltastar.com is well aware that the vast majority of its readers are very keen on genetics, embryogenesis and teratogenesis.
They have a sacrosanct duty to inform their readers of the latest developments relating to these topics.
What is your problem?
That should read congenital defects not genital.
Daph, please tell me you copied it wrong.
Come 2013 these Maltastar morons will be heads of government’s department. I’m immigrating to Zimbabwe, anyone joining?
You’re being unfair to Maltstar this time. All it did was to reproduce – in less than sublime prose- the results of a study which has been published in newspapers of all shapes, sizes and political and ideological hues.
Erm, I’m pretty sure they meant ‘genetic’ complications and not ‘genital’ complications.
The article is filled with biological nonsense, like their mysterious ‘genital organ cells’. I think what they meant to say was something along these lines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11164078
Of course I hardly expect them to have a basic grasp of biology, when they are unable to string a sentence together in English.
Maltastar: one huge genital complication.
It should come as no surprise that they’ve got their science wrong too. It is not true that all cells have two pairs of chromosomes: there is only one pair in each cell. The geniuses who wrote this piece do not say where they got their information from and there seems to be no online reference to such a study, so I have no idea what they’re talking about. And neither have they.
We were taught that there are 23 pairs of chromosomes in each normal cell (46 in all). Gametes (or sex cells) have 23 ‘single’ chromosomes which will produce 23 pairs when the 23 from the sperm and the 23 from the egg meet. What they meant to say is that in normal cells, chromosomes come in pairs whereas in gametes they are single.
I meant that there is only one pair of chromosomes of each type.
Actually there are 46 chromosomes, 23 pairs in each cell, except for the sex cells (eggs for women, sperm for men), for which there are 23 chromosomes.
The 23rd pair of chromosomes are the sex chromosomes: when that last chromosome splits with the division of the 23 pairs, we have the genetic contribution for genetic sex from eggs (mother X-X) or sperm (father X-Y), where mothers always provide the “X” contribution for the sex chromosome, and father’s provide either a sperm cell with an “X” or a “Y” sex chromosome: X+X = genetic girl, X + Y = generic boy. The relative presence or absence of certain hormones also are required for genetic gender to be expressed physically in the offspring.
I have no idea what biological processes the Maltastar article is attempting to describe.
” a certain protein that is needed to break up chromosomes during fertilisation.”
Breaking up chromosomes just results in one complete mess – what these intelligent beings must have meant was the separation of the chromosal pairs during meiosis i.e. the phase where the sperm get 22 chromosomes and either the X or Y and the oocytes get 22 chromosomes and an X chromosome.
What a bunch of idiots that are aspiring to rule this country – God help all of us.
interesting link
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/03/how-christians-spoil-sex/?hpt=C2
Quite scary how someone actually has to tell a group of people that they should enjoy sex.
The article seems to have quickly vanished from Maltastar’s site. The news was been published in quite a few newspapers and websites over the last few days, based on the publication “Age-Related Meiotic Segregation Errors in Mammalian Oocytes Are Preceded by Depletion of Cohesin and Sgo2” which is available to anyone who has a ScienceDirect subscription.
MaltaStar managed to report this even more poorly than some of the Indian online papers. Ageing was shown to cause “genetic” not genital defects, and the mangled sentence about chromosomes being lost somehow refers to the wrong chromosome counts retained in the eggs.
Of course, only MaltaStar made the connection between “genital defects” and women with careers which is supremely ironic when coming from a socialist rag.
Every now and then I think to myself that the new generation of Labourites will somehow free themselves from the shackles of their parents’ poverty and redeem the Labour Party through education and knowledge. Then I read articles like this one.
I don’t know about you but that is how I like my Labourites: dim. Preferably looking well-fed and wearing ill-fitting suits as well as dim. This has just made my day.
Well at least The Times have finally figured out the difference between ‘a slipper’ and running shoes.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100902/local/17-year-old-reported-missing
… and yet, according to Alexa.com, Maltastar stands at 107 in Malta while Running Commentary is down to 206 ….
Bloody frustrating, isn’t it?
[Daphne – 206 is bloody excellent for a personal blog, my dear, especially when compared to 107 for the news website of a national opposition party backed and promoted by the party’s entire media machine, and especially so again when you consider just how little I’ve done over the summer compared to Maltastar’s relentless fresh uploads every day.]
I confess I always log onto Maltastar first because I get perverse delight in reading their badly-worded rubbish. It would be a pity if they fix it.
How sad the present administration losing an election to this party. It doesn’t say much for them either!