Question:  how is it possible to write an entire article about the DNA test Senator Elizabeth Warren had done to “prove” her claims of native american heritage – specifically the Cherokee and Delaware tribes – without mentioning that the test did not check to see if she had Cherokee or Delaware ancestry?

Answer:  read Astead W. Herndon’s article in today’s New York Times, and there it is.

An entire article analyzing reaction to that test and what it means to Ms. Warren’s potential run for President in 2020, without pointing out that the geneticist pal of hers, Stanford’s Carlos Bustamonte, compared her DNA only for Mexican, Peruvian and Columbian heritage.

The test did not compare her DNA to the Cherokee or Delaware tribes, which is what she claimed – and what, despite her absurd, easily debunked denials, was used fraudulently used to further her academic career for decades.

Do you find it amazing that this information could possibly be left out of a supposedly informative article?  Or, for that matter, that the “very likely) (i.e. not proven) DNA connection to Mexico/Peru/Columbia was so tiny (as little as 1/1024th) that most people who do not claim such ancestry probably have at least as much of it as she does?

If so, you’re not very acquainted with today’s New York Times.

But if you are wondering how low The Times has sunk as a source of neutral information, this should give you a pretty clear heads-up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *