Welcome to No-Karma r/JewishDNA
I created No-Karma r/JewishDNA because arguments about Jewish population genetics should be answered with evidence. They should not be decided by Reddit karma, dogpiling, popularity, who already belongs to the dominant group in a subreddit, or whether somebody is even allowed to answer what is being said about them.
I am Steven Parker, an independent genetics researcher and the author of the preprint How Ashkenazi Origins Were Mis-modeled: Southern Italian Ancestry, Proxy Bias, and the Illusion of Levantine Intermediacy. It is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. It is also a substantial population-genetics argument built around published research, reference-population design, PCA, ADMIXTURE, identity-by-descent, FST, qpAdm, Y-chromosomal evidence, ancient DNA, founder effects, historical population geography, and my own independent analyses.
The paper is not a Reddit hot take. It asks a specific scientific question: how much of the familiar picture of Ashkenazi Jews as genetically intermediate between Europe and the Levant depends on which populations researchers chose to represent Europe? A major argument of the paper is that Southern Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Cretan, and related Mediterranean populations are crucial to that question, yet many influential models either omitted them or substituted Northern Italian, Tuscan, Sardinian, or Northern and Central European populations.
Why This Website Exists
The immediate reason for creating this site was watching what happened when my work was discussed on r/JewishDNA. I expected disagreement. I expected people who thought the paper was wrong to challenge the reference populations, attack the statistical models, question the interpretation of PCA or FST, point to studies I had overlooked, or reproduce my calculations and show where they failed. That would have been useful. Instead, one of the most visible responses was a personal accusation about me.
The screenshot above shows Reddit user Binkybinkovsky writing, “This author has a history of anti-jewish & anti-Ashkenazim sentiment.” The comment received 16 upvotes and was elevated into the visible top portion of a discussion supposedly about my research. I reject the accusation. More importantly, look at what is actually there: no quotation from me, no example of the alleged history, no link, no documentation, and no explanation of what supposedly establishes the claim. Nothing in the comment addresses a dataset, a reference population, an FST value, a qpAdm model, a PCA, an ancient sample, a Y-DNA comparison, or any other part of the paper.
That is why the comment matters to me. It is not merely that somebody on Reddit insulted me. The problem is that a paper containing extensive data, published studies, competing population models, tables, genetic distances, ancient DNA comparisons, and independent analyses was sitting there to be examined, yet a content-free personal accusation was rewarded with visibility while the substance of the paper was largely ignored. At the same time, I was blocked from participating in r/JewishDNA, so people were free to discuss my research and my character while I was prevented from answering them in the same forum.
Readers arriving later see the accusation, see the upvotes, and see no response from the person being accused. What they may not know is that the person being discussed is not permitted to respond there. Silence created by a ban or moderation wall can then be mistaken for an inability to answer. That is a very different thing from an open argument in which both sides put their evidence on the table.
This Is Not Just About One Reddit Comment
I do not regard what happened in that thread as one isolated rude comment. To me it illustrates a recurring problem with r/JewishDNA and a broader problem with Reddit itself. Established users accumulate karma and status inside communities, familiar voices become treated as authoritative, and voting can push short, confident assertions above detailed arguments that require people to stop and examine the underlying evidence. Once a local consensus forms, the vote count itself can begin to look like proof that the consensus must be right.
That becomes particularly ugly when the same environment can restrict who is permitted to challenge the consensus. Reddit has karma thresholds, subreddit-specific karma, account-age rules, AutoModerator, Crowd Control, reputation filtering, moderator bans, approved-user systems, ban-evasion filtering, and other mechanisms that can stand between a person and the public discussion. Some of those tools have legitimate uses against spam and abuse, but stacked together they can also create a formidable gate around a community. Reddit’s own account-quality and ban-evasion systems can consider account, network, location, and connection-related signals, which is also why VPNs, shared networks, mobile connections, or other unusual network circumstances can become part of a much larger automated trust system.
I am not claiming that simply turning on a VPN automatically causes Reddit to censor somebody. The larger point is that what appears to an outside reader to be a free discussion can actually sit behind multiple layers of voting, reputation, automated classification, filtering, and moderator discretion. When those mechanisms operate inside a community that is already hostile to a particular argument or person, the result can be a discussion in which one side gets the microphone, the audience, and the voting system while the other side cannot even enter the room.
That is what I object to about the way r/JewishDNA has handled discussion of my work. Karma is not expertise. A highly upvoted account does not make an FST value correct. Sixteen upvotes do not validate a population model, and they do not transform an unsupported personal accusation into documented fact. A subreddit consensus is not peer review, and a scientific argument does not become wrong because the person making it has been banned from the subreddit discussing it.
What Was Actually in the Paper They Were Supposedly Discussing?
My preprint examines the long-standing characterization of Ashkenazi Jews as genetically intermediate between Europe and the Levant and asks how much of that pattern depends on the populations chosen to represent Europe. A central argument is that influential studies repeatedly used Northern Italians, Tuscans, Sardinians, or Northern and Central European populations while Southern Italian and Sicilian populations were absent from the comparison. That matters because Southern Italy and Sicily occupy a different Mediterranean genetic space and are also directly relevant to the historical geography of Jewish settlement.
The paper approaches that problem from multiple directions rather than relying on one favorite PCA or one ancestry calculator. It examines PCA and ADMIXTURE, identity-by-descent sharing, autosomal FST distances, qpAdm admixture models, Y-chromosomal subclades, ancient DNA, founder effects, geographically informative variants, Italian Jewish populations, and the documented history of Jewish communities in Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece, the Aegean, and the broader Mediterranean. It then adds an independent layer consisting of my own qpAdm modeling, my own autosomal FST calculations, and an ancient-only G25 analysis.
Four Analyses, a Strikingly Similar Italian Profile
One of the most important comparisons in the entire preprint is also one of the simplest to understand. My independently generated qpAdm result does not produce some wildly different ancestry profile that exists nowhere else in the literature. It falls remarkably close to three separate peer-reviewed analyses using different methodologies, datasets, and temporal frameworks. My model estimates 69.97% Italian South ancestry. Lerga-Jaso et al. report approximately 68% Italian ancestry. Waldman et al. report approximately 65% Southern Italian ancestry. Brace et al., using medieval Jewish ancient DNA, report approximately 67% Sicilian ancestry.
| Analysis | Method | Data | Italian / Southern Italian / Sicilian Component | Other Reported Components |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parker — author-generated analysis in this preprint | qpAdm | Modern genome-wide data | 69.97% Italian South | 22.06% Lebanese; 7.97% Russian |
| Lerga-Jaso et al. (2025) | Local ancestry inference using Orchestra | Modern genomes | ~68% Italian | 16.6% Levantine; 7.2% Iraqi-Iranian-Caucasian-Turkish; 2.4% Greek-Balkan; 1.7% Eastern European |
| Waldman et al. (2022) | qpAdm | Modern genomes | ~65% Southern Italian | ~19% Middle Eastern in the reported average model; ~16% Eastern European |
| Brace et al. (2022) | qpAdm anchored to medieval Jewish ancient DNA | Medieval + modern genomes | ~67% Sicilian | ~33% Turkish Jewish; no detectable French or Polish component in the model summarized in my preprint |
These are not four copies of the same analysis. Lerga-Jaso uses a local-ancestry framework. Waldman uses qpAdm with historically motivated source populations. Brace works from medieval Jewish ancient DNA. My analysis uses a separate qpAdm implementation and reference configuration. Even the Italian labels are not identical: one analysis reports Italian, another Southern Italian, another Sicilian, and mine directly uses Italian South.HO. That methodological independence is precisely why the similarity is interesting.
The dominant Italian or Sicilian estimate stays in an extraordinarily narrow range: approximately 65%, 67%, 68%, and 69.97%. The remaining components are partitioned differently because the methods and source populations are different, so these numbers should not be treated as four mathematically identical models. But the broad profile is strikingly similar: in all four analyses, roughly two-thirds of the modeled ancestry falls into an Italian, Southern Italian, or Sicilian component.
This is exactly the sort of result I expected people on r/JewishDNA to discuss. If somebody believes my 69.97% Southern Italian estimate is wrong, there is an obvious scientific question sitting beside it: why do three separate peer-reviewed analyses using different methods produce results in almost the same range? That does not make my model immune from criticism. It makes the convergence something that has to be addressed rather than ignored.
Instead, the highly visible response shown above was that I supposedly have a history of “anti-jewish & anti-Ashkenazim sentiment.” What does that accusation tell us about why Lerga-Jaso obtained approximately 68% Italian, why Waldman obtained approximately 65% Southern Italian, why Brace obtained approximately 67% Sicilian, or why my independently generated qpAdm model landed at 69.97% Italian South? Nothing. It does not even attempt to answer the scientific issue.
My Independent Results Go Beyond That One qpAdm Number
The qpAdm result is only one part of the independent analysis in the preprint. My autosomal FST calculations produce the smallest distances to Cretans and Southern Italians at 0.0049, followed by Sicilians at 0.0052, Greeks at 0.0055 and Maltese at 0.0066. The same table places the non-European Jewish populations included in the comparison at substantially larger distances. Those numbers are there to be examined and reproduced. If somebody gets different results using the same data, I want to see them.
The ancient-only G25 analysis provides another independent check from a different direction. In that analysis, Ashkenazi Jews were evaluated against 11,514 ancient individuals spanning Roman, Late Antique, medieval, pre-Roman Mediterranean, Near Eastern, and Eurasian contexts. The strongest similarities described in the paper are to Roman, Late Antique, and medieval Italian individuals, with secondary similarity to eastern Roman provincial contexts in the Balkans, the Aegean, and western Anatolia. G25 is descriptive and I do not use it to estimate ancestry proportions, but the point of including it is to ask whether an unconstrained ancient-only comparison points in the same general geographic direction as the formal modeling and distance analyses.
Someone can challenge any of those choices. The qpAdm sources can be questioned, the FST calculations can be reproduced, the G25 comparison can be criticized, and the historical interpretation can be contested. That is what should have happened in a thread about the paper. The existence of disagreement is not the problem. Replacing disagreement with a character smear while ignoring the analysis is the problem.
The Peer-Reviewed Literature Is Not a Side Issue
My preprint itself has not been peer reviewed, but a large part of it is built around peer-reviewed population-genetics literature. I am not claiming that every scientist I cite agrees with every historical conclusion I draw, and I am not pretending that studies using different methods are interchangeable. What matters is that Southern European, Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Cretan, and broader Mediterranean affinities repeatedly appear in published research. These are not observations that became illegitimate because I assembled them into an argument about proxy choice.
Drineas et al. (2019), “Genetic history of the population of Crete”, reported PCA overlap involving Cretans, Peloponnesians, Sicilians, and Ashkenazi Jews. That study is important to my argument because it directly places Ashkenazi Jews within a Southern European and Mediterranean comparison rather than forcing them to be interpreted only between a northern European pole and a Levantine pole.
Tian et al. (2009), “Analysis and Application of European Genetic Diversity in the Ashkenazi Jewish Population”, reported particularly small autosomal FST distances between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians and Greeks. Zoossmann-Diskin (2010), “Are European Jews genetically Caucasian?”, likewise reported strong genetic proximity involving Ashkenazi Jews, Italians, and Greeks. These analyses are especially relevant because genetic distance is not simply a visual impression from a PCA plot.
Schuenemann et al. (2017), “Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods”, provides another comparative Mediterranean PCA framework discussed in the preprint. Xue et al. (2017), “The time and place of European admixture in Ashkenazi Jewish history”, examined Ashkenazi admixture using genome-wide data and European ancestry relationships. These studies are not identical to my analysis, but they are part of the broader published evidence that has to be considered when discussing Ashkenazi population structure.
The same is true of the three ancestry analyses in the comparison table. Lerga-Jaso et al. (2025) independently reports a predominantly Italian ancestry profile using local ancestry inference. Waldman et al. (2022) reports a qpAdm model with approximately 65% Southern Italian ancestry. Brace et al. (2022) provides medieval ancient-DNA evidence whose model summarized in my preprint produces approximately 67% Sicilian ancestry. The important point is not that all three papers say exactly what I say. The important point is that my Southern Italian-dominant result sits beside independent published analyses showing a remarkably similar profile.
The Y-chromosomal evidence raises the same problem for simplistic claims about what is supposedly “Levantine” or “European.” My paper discusses Semino et al. (2004) because that study actually included Southern Italian regional populations alongside Ashkenazi Jews at downstream resolution. In those comparisons, Ashkenazi J2 and E-M123 frequencies overlap Southern Italian variation, while J1 remains a secondary component. Again, a reader is free to disagree with how I interpret those data, but the meaningful argument is about the comparative population structure, the subclades, the sampling, and the effects of founder drift.
So Is This an Indictment of the Scientists Too?
This is the question the personal smear avoids. If discussing Southern Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Cretan, or Mediterranean genetic affinity is supposed to establish that I harbor anti-Jewish or anti-Ashkenazi sentiment, what exactly does that imply about the peer-reviewed scientists whose data report those same kinds of affinities? Are researchers anti-Ashkenazi because their PCA places Ashkenazi Jews near Sicilians and Greeks, because their FST analysis finds particularly small distances to Italians, or because an ancestry model assigns roughly two-thirds of the modeled ancestry to an Italian or Sicilian source?
That would be an absurd way to evaluate genetics. A result is not pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish according to whether someone likes the geographic population appearing in the analysis. The legitimate questions are whether the data are appropriate, whether the reference populations make sense, whether the statistical model is valid, whether the result can be reproduced, and whether the historical interpretation follows from the evidence.
If I have gone beyond what one of the papers I cite actually supports, identify the passage and explain the disagreement. If my source populations are inappropriate, test alternatives. If the qpAdm model is defective, construct a better one and show why. If an FST value is wrong, recalculate it. If another dataset contradicts my interpretation, bring it into the discussion. Those are substantive criticisms because another person can inspect them, test them, and answer them. An unsupported accusation about the author’s supposed attitudes does none of that.
Why No-Karma r/JewishDNA?
This site is my answer to a simple question: what would r/JewishDNA look like if every serious argument actually had to be answered instead of buried? What if somebody with no Reddit karma could challenge somebody with 100,000 karma and both arguments remained visible? What if readers were expected to open the papers, inspect the tables, compare the models, and decide for themselves instead of treating a vote count as a shortcut for deciding who is right?
No-Karma r/JewishDNA is not supposed to eliminate disagreement or manufacture a new consensus in the opposite direction. I expect people to disagree with me. Population history is complicated. Reference populations matter. PCA can be overinterpreted. qpAdm depends heavily on model construction. Founder effects and endogamy complicate genetic distance. Ancient DNA remains incomplete, and different methods answer different questions. Those are reasons to have a serious argument, not reasons to shut one down.
The difference I want is straightforward. If somebody thinks my research is wrong, move the discussion toward the evidence rather than away from it. Read the study I cited. Check the dataset. Examine the reference populations. Reproduce the calculation. Run the competing model. Explain the methodological disagreement. If somebody makes a serious personal accusation, require evidence for that too. Nobody should be able to substitute karma, reputation, moderator power, or a dogpile for the work of actually answering an argument.
That is what No-Karma r/JewishDNA is for. Serious scientific disagreements should be answered, not buried. Popularity is not evidence, karma is not peer review, and nobody should get the final word on genetics simply because Reddit gave them the bigger microphone.