>>3101571idk see if they're sauced in the article or otherwise look them up by study date/name
>>3101513>>3101868Ideally, to totally study its implications, we'd want like 2-3 separate studies of like 1200+ participants. We'd need to filter out communities that are known for high levels of incest as that may distort the data. We would also have to filter out people who are already high risk for diseases/disorders. And then you would need to split based on the 3 most common types of incest: siblings, parent-child, and cousins
This is no easy feat, but we need a definitive answer. The problem is it's immoral even if there are low risks, hence its illegal status, so a study would never be allowed if there were any chance it would show low to near zero risk.
Then again, there was an article just 2 days ago that changed the narritive by saying cousin incest was only a 2% risk. I'm sure you can guess why.
http://m.nbc12.com/story/37676313/science-says-its-fine-to-marry-your-first-cousinhttp://archive.is/v5mco 