Skin Assessment Documentation Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Responding to A2A.Probably for assorted reasons.This AMA Ethics article goes in to some detail:The Case of Dr. Oz: Ethics, Evidence, and Does Professional Self-Regulation Work? | Journal of Ethics | American Medical Association (ama-assn.org)That said, EVERY doctor who does not follow the herd gets called a quack. It is incredibly irritating because it’s devoid of logic and shows zero argumentation skills and complete mental laziness. If there are issues, address the issues, don’t waste peoples’ time descending to kindergarten level taunts.Never heard a doctor yet who does not say he was told in medical school that half of what he’s being taught will turn out to be wrong. People do the best they can, but there has always been a ton of incorrect information taught to every medical student including whatever was taught today.So the knee-jerk reaction of “quack” has got to stop. It’s stupid.Will point out FACTS again. When Barry Marshall and Robin Warren showed H. pylori was a major factor in peptic ulcers, they were called quacks. About 20 years later, they got the Nobel Prize in Medicine for that very research. Probably NO doctor out there today would disagree with the role of H. pylori.There are surgeons alive who operated on infants without anesthesia because of incorrect beliefs about their ability to feel pain.Comfy crutches of patient’s being liars or drug-seekers when they say a pain med did not work properly for them are being yanked away by actual science in the field of pharmacogenomics (which applies to meds outside pain killers, but usually the lips flap about pain meds more than anything else).So though physicians ARE highly intelligent, they’re still human, and they will say and do dumb things. The “quack” fixation is dumb. The can chastise Oz for some things in particular, but if he were a “quack” he would not be teaching at Columbia, successfully performing surgery, and maintaining his Board certifications. You can see credentials here:Mehmet C. Oz, MD, FACSThe list of publications for 2008 and before are basically in medical journals and on topics for physicians; soon after he starts getting more popular materials. He has assorted awards, from ones in the early 1990s for Laser Medicine, for one; but those later awards, like Emmys…well, that clearly IS an issue for some.You can see one thing that was brought up in the AMA piece was the apple juice issue. But that’s spin, because there IS a concern about arsenic in apple juice:“FDA has conducted routine surveillance for arsenic in apple juice since 1991, and has recently increased its surveillance efforts. The surveillance results are discussed in this supporting document and the associated risk assessment document (Ref. 5). Total arsenic levels in apple juice samples have routinely been below 10 ppb; for example, more than 95 percent of total arsenic levels in a set of 94 apple juice samples collected at retail as part of a fiscal year 2011 assignment were below 10 ppb (see Ref. 6 and Section V below). The remaining four samples in that assignment with total arsenic levels above 10 ppb had inorganic arsenic levels below 10 ppb. However, FDA has identified apple juice samples with inorganic arsenic levels above 10 ppb in previous years (Ref. 7). FDA considers that it is possible to further reduce public exposure to inorganic arsenic from apple juice in general, and specifically from apple juice that currently may contain inorganic arsenic at levels above 10 ppb. Therefore, FDA is issuing draft guidance on an action level for inorganic arsenic in apple juice.”Supporting Document for Action Level for Arsenic in Apple Juice).Yes, so much excitement. Wait, what preceded THAT paragraph?“Arsenic is an element that occurs in the environment from both natural and anthropogenic sources including erosion of arsenic-containing rocks, volcanic eruptions, contamination from mining and smelting ores, and previous or current use of arsenic-containing pesticides (Ref. 1). Arsenic is found in both inorganic and organic forms (together referred to as total arsenic), and inorganic arsenic is generally considered more toxic than organic arsenic (Ref. 2). Consumption of inorganic arsenic has been associated with cancer, skin lesions, developmental effects, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity, and diabetes in humans (Ref. 2). In recent assessments, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) (Ref. 2), which includes participation by U.S. FDA scientists, concluded that food can be a major contributor to inorganic arsenic exposure, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (Ref. 3) concluded that dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic should be reduced. These findings suggest a need to reduce exposure to inorganic arsenic from food.Apple juice is one source of exposure to inorganic arsenic from food. Apple juice is a greater potential source of dietary inorganic arsenic exposure to children than to adults, because children’s dietary patterns are often less varied than those of adults, and they consume more apple juice relative to their body weight than do adults (Ref. 4).”Hmmm…https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2-c1.pdfDon’t really need arsenic in our food. We’re going to be exposed to some and the body will eliminate it, but a little goes a long way, so it was a legit issue. I didn’t hear what he said about arsenic in apple juice (nor if he addressed it in rice or other foods or other sources).So sometimes it may be an issue of perspective: he thinks something is more or less important than the mainstream does.In any case, the best advice is when ALL people offer is an insult, like quack, to just ignore them. The insult has zero value. If someone seriously cares about something he can provide an actual argument and that you can evaluate. Ignaz Semmelweis was mocked and hounded for his quack theories on contamination.Lots of sneering today on things that will undergo the H. pylori transformation from ridicule to established science—like the importance of the microbiome or the role of the Gut Brain Axis. We’re seeing progress there though the true importance of the gut is absolutely not yet appreciated nor even thought about often enough. If everyone who heard stupid quack noises gave up, there would be no advancements. Oz gets some things wrong without a doubt, just like 100.0% of other physicians—and people.

I went to the hospital ER, the physician on duty didn’t take a few extra moments to observe the obvious signs of sepsis.This is a long read: Everything which could have gone wrong went wrong. Sepsis isn’t a small problem, it is much larger than one might imagine. Estimates of 1/4 to 1/2 of in hospital deaths are caused by sepsis. Is Sepsis Fatal? Septic Shock Treatment & Diagnosis The chances of your death, if not properly diagnosed could be 4 to 6 days after an infection caused sepsis. Know the signs.Sepsis is a level of infection (usually viral or bacterial) where the body’s own immune response results in systemic inflammation (inflammation throughout the body). The earliest signs are fever/chills or low body temperature, reduced urination, rapid pulse, rapid breathing, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. If the inflammation becomes severe, it can lead to septic shock, where there is reduced effective blood perfusion of tissues (tissues are not getting enough blood), which can then become organ failure, and finally death.My StoryIt was in February 2016, suffering from having the flu for four days my wife took me to the ER late afternoon. It was quickly determined I was extremely dehydrated, an IV was started in my left hand. Once the bag was empty another was started. The typical tests were ordered. My temperature and BP were normal.We left the ER around nine p.m. and went home. There was a short window in which, although still weak from the after effects of the flu, I was eating, drinking a lot of fluids, looking forward to returning to work.It was at the most a day and a half later, around five a.m., something just didn’t feel right. My first thought was that I caught something at the hospital, so I took my temperature it was below normal and I felt warm, the area around the vein which the IV needle was inserted appeared as though it wasn’t healing. It was red, and what appeared to be an infection, which I applied Neosporin and a bandaid. Lastly, there was some skin discoloration spots around my wrist, hand and different parts of my body. My thoughts were my body was fighting the infection in my hand, the discoloring was due to being in the bed too long.I didn’t think much of it, my wife on the other hand was very concerned, telling me I needed to go back to the ER, “There’s something wrong, unless we go, I’m not going to leave.” Being a typical male, and being ill the previous week, I became upset. Getting a man to go to the ER is similar to giving a cat a bath.It's now around seven a.m. when we arrived back to the ER. Both of us were taken to the back. Surprisingly a doctor saw me in 10 minutes. My temperature actually was lower than at home, the nurse took it twice after seeing 97.5. I pointed out my wrist, and explained how painful the area and wrist was. The physician saw the discoloration (inflammation) which started where the needle was inserted to above my wrist. My blood pressure was down. I believe the physician spent maybe three minutes with us.My wife tried to explain, how a day and half previous we were in the same ER and why. The physician seemed distracted and possibly not hearing her words, she tried to explain to the physician, that she felt the infection came from the ER.The physician acted as though he was listening. I don’t believe he was, my feeling was he had predetermined what the diagnosis was (cellulitis) he was busy writing a script for a antibiotic. Last thing he said was “If there wasn’t an improvement in five days contact your primary doctor.” He then went to another patient.My wife and I looked at one another, no words were spoken, after thirty years of marriage a look can say a lot, as in WTF just happened? The RN who saw me before the doctor remained, it’s then she leaned in and spoke softly. “Stay on top of this, any changes, even if they are small, get back here right away!”There must have been something she saw or possibly through her experience, red flags were waving we felt. Much later there was to be internal investigation. Part of that included her written statement.It was around 7 pm the same day. I was lethargic, I had urinated only twice through the day. She took my temperature, it was at 96.8 degrees, I felt as though I was burning up. As she looked at the blotches they had become more pronounced and covered more of my body. I had no energy, my wife helped me get dressed, it’s then I felt a little disoriented. She got me into the car, then rushed me back to the hospital.My wife pulled in and parked at the emergency entrance and left to get help. One of the individuals who came out was the nurse who had spoken to both of us that morning. I was rushed to the back. The ER doctor came in immediately, the nurse had just finished taking my BP, I don’t remember the exact number except it was in the low 90’s.The physician who was taking care of me was 180 degrees different than the one from the morning. It’s hard to explain, but I felt safe.Then after asking a few questions, looking at my past two visits, then comparing all three, he had more information than most ER patients.My BP, then my low body temperature and my hand (which in 12 hours looked swollen, the point of IV needle was oozing nasty puss) was in a bad way. He also observed areas of discoloration.I was awake, a little confused and in pain. The physician, without receiving confirmation of systemic inflammation/infection he acted, correctly diagnosed my condition as sepsis. Blood tests, urine sample and a sample of the infected area would confirm this. He wasn’t waiting for results, he acted. I had ER staff all over me, including the nurse who had taken care of me 12 hours earlier. (Standard protocol in cases of suspected sepsis is to begin immediate treatment/fluid resuscitation, adjusting the antibiotics based on susceptibility studies, as the information becomes available.)There were multiple IV’s including (according to to doctor, a very powerful antibiotic, pain medication and medication to get my BP up) another physician arrived to assess my situation. There was a nurse or physician beside me at all times in the ER for about three hours, before I was sent to ICU.Before I was transported the ER the physician spoke privately with us. He confirmed preliminary tests were positive for infection, and I was septic. Also he listed all the indicators: low BP, low temp, the wound site, patches of discolored skin disoriented and weakness. He had all the original documentation from my first and second ER visits.It was his opinion, when I came to the ER on the first visit after having the flu my immune system had become compromised. He wouldn’t say directly infection was introduced into my system during my first visit. While he spoke he said the infection that cause me to become septic could have been introduced in a variety of ways.He brushed over the second ER visit by saying the other physician acted appropriately. His opinion was based upon limited information.As he was leaving my wife followed him. Unknown to me until two weeks later she had a private conversation with him. It’s then he explained my prognosis. I was between severe sepsis and septic shock, the next six to twelve hours would be critical. She asked “Do you feel there’s a chance he may die?” He’s response “Your husband is extremely ill, we are doing all that can be done to send him home.”After 7 days in ICU then another 6 days in a hospital room I was able to go home. I was still far from a full recovery. I did recover, and personally thanked the physician and especially the RN. There was still anger towards the second physician, I gave thought to legal action.Even being as angry as I was, I wanted to speak with the hospital Director, which I did. Having all the documentation and list of events, I felt the second physician lacked focus. I was going to offer the Director a chance to look into it before I were to take legal action. This I had never done, I just wanted answers, and what steps the hospital was .taking to reduce this from happening again.It was a week later I was contacted and asked for a meeting at the hospital. It’s there I meet with the hospital Director and the Chief Medical Director. They were honest, telling me the 2nd medical doctor who rushed through ER had been suspended for two weeks. And to have their entire medical staff (which they had already done) be retrained as to the signs of sepsis. At the same time the protocol of the Physician is always right was changed.Verbally they admitted as a patient, the hospital failed me. I never expected a written document from them. All and any invoices for payment were voided, which was a significant amount.I didn’t feel or want legal action. What I wanted was to protect the next patient. As a result of the real risk posed by infections that become septic, the early signs of sepsis and proper protocol can be seen commonly in ED departments across the US.

There is no genetic, historical, archaeological or anthropological evidence of a massive population/ethnic replacement of the Maghrebi populaton after the 8th century A.D. (early Muslim era), instead of merely accounts and evidences of foreign immigration absorbed by the local people.That includes the well known slave trafficking that Afrocentrics like to remember about to say that the modern genetics and looks of North Africans come from enslaved Europeans, ignoring the facts that, firstly, North Africans do not have a genetic makeup similar to Europeans (nor to Arabs, mind you) and form their own distinctive genetic cluster, and, secondly, that the slave trafficking also brought millions of black people from Subsaharan Africa into North Africa during the Middle Ages and as late as the early 20th century, so of course that would have offset any “major” impact of European slaves on the local gene pool (not to mention the well known fact that slaves unfortunately, for obvious reasons, tended to have much lower population growth rates than free native people).The fact that some of the more isolated Berber-speaking peoples in the Mediterranean Maghreb tend to have less, not more, black traits and Subsaharan African ancestry than more cosmopolitan Arabized Maghrebis cannot be ignored.In fact, since we know that most of Iberia was under Moorish rule for several centuries, and gene flow between Iberia and North Africa had begun even before that, it’s useful to look at what genetic research in Iberia can provide us with to infer how Moors were like genetically. But the evidences point to negligible Subsaharan African-related ancestry in Iberia, as opposed to a minor but much more noticeable North African-related (similar to modern Moroccans or Algerians) ancestry in them.In fact, scientists were able to find two very intriguing genetic outliers in Chalcolithic Central Iberia (~5,000 years ago) and Bronze Age Southwest Iberia (~3,000 years ago) who were much more similar genetically to modern Maghrebis than to either modern or ancient Iberians (or to Subsaharan Africans), having probably been a North African immigrant (or maybe Algerian-like men simply fell of from the sky in the part of Europe that is closest to the Maghreb, and by sheer coincidence their genetic makeup was similar to modern Maghrebis? Hmm, let’s go back to reality).Not only that: we now have direct evidence of the DNA makeup of Al-Andalus Muslims. Ancient DNA evidence in Muslim cemeteries of Medieval Iberia (Al-Andalus) did turn out to show a lot of extra Maghrebi ancestry (but beware: modern Maghrebi-related ancestry, that is, similar to the genetic makeup of modern Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians, not typical Black Africans) as well as Levantine ancestry… but that doesn’t help those who claim Moors were Black Africans related to West Africans or to East Africans.Another inconvenient fact of modern research on ancient DNA is that there is not a dominance of Black African-related ancestry in any of the ancient North Africans that have had their autosomal DNA analyzed to date:Paleolithic (Taforalt), Early Neolithic and Late Neolithic individuals from Morocco, who had indigenous North African and Early Anatolian/European Farmer admixtures even now found in large frequencies in Maghrebis, especially Berbers, and most closely related to Berbers among modern populations. The Paleolithic Ibeomaurisian sample from Taforalt (Morocco) is particularly interesting, because it probably indicates that North Africa was already very distinct from West Africa, Central Africa or East Africa even before the Neolithic Revolution and Metal Ages, with their enhanced long-distance migrations. That population was already a mix of a peculiar Ancestral North African people, not closely related to any modern Subsaharan African people (those modestly closer are the Hadza hunter-gatherers), with Paleolithic West Eurasians. Yes, 16,000 years ago they were dark-skinned, but they were not related to modern black Sahelian or Subsaharan Africans.7th-11th century DNA samples of Guanches from the Canary Islands, centuries before the European colonization, at a time when those islands were much more isolated than most of North Africa, nonetheless the native Guanches were found to be most similar to present-day Maghrebis of Berber ancestry, particularly in Algeria and Tunisia, that is, even an isolated medieval population of North Africa that had migrated to the remote Canary Islands in the Antiquity (and, mind you, had not been using European slaves) was already pretty much like modern Mediterranean Berbers, not having that much West African-like or East African-like ancestry at all.And Bronze Age to Late Iron Age Egyptians from Abusir el-Meleq, which is - unlike some Afrocentrics who just didn’t like the results of the study repeatedly claim - located in northern Upper Egypt, not in Lower Egypt, and showed those Egyptians to be closer to modern Yemenis and Negev/Sinai Bedouins (people who aren’t white nor black; yes, believe it or not, the world is not literally black-and-white), but in fact displaying a genetic profile of their own, which can hardly be explained (as Afrocentrics often rebuke) as the result of successive non-African invasions (from Hyksos to Arabs, everything goes):firstly, because the Bronze Age DNA sample (before Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans etc.) was very similar genetically to the Roman Era DNA sample some 1,500 years later (how likely is it that it’s just a coincidence, or that Abusir el-Meleq was an outlier community that remained isolated from Egyptians, with its “Middle Eastern immigrant”, for more than one millennium?!);and, secondly, because a mixture of Subsaharan African-like people with Greeks, Italians, Persians and Mesopotamians could never create that genetic makeup that is in fact closer to people of Yemen. People are not defined by their skin color, so a brown-skinned Egyptian cannot be assumed to be a simple mixture of generic black + generic white = generic brown.Those Egyptians with a genetic makeup very unlike that of modern “Black Africans” (who are actually several distinct population groups) do not look like Greeks, Persians, Romans or any other conqueror of Egypt in the Iron Age - but distantly related to Bedouins of the Sinai and Negev right next to Egypt (or will people now suppose that Bedouins had conquered Egypt as soon as the New Kingdom and were so numerous with their desert nomadic clans that they totally replaced the powerful and civilized Egyptians in some places?). So, yes, the highest likelihood is that those were native Egyptians, even if they aren’t necessarily representative of the entire population of the country.There are black people in North Africa today as in the past (though they aren’t the majority), and I’m sure that from the perspective of European accounts like those of Vikings (the Norse being among the palest people on earth), most Moroccans, even those we don’t see as “black”, were pretty dark. I’m sure many Moors were black in the modern sense of “Black African” (closely related to Subsaharan African groups) and, even more frequently, in the general sense of having dark skin color, not just because such people already lived in parts of North Africa, but also the Islamic Middle Ages saw a massive use of mercenary and slave warriors from foreign lands such as the southern Sahara and Sahel. Average Europeans are not expected to have been very knowledgeable or even interested in learning about the fine distinctions and ethnic diversity of people from Africa, so they just used the term Moor in such a generic way for everyone even remotely linked to “the other side” of the Mediterranean that after some centuries Moor came to be used even to refer to any Muslim person, regardless of origin.Even though European slavery did happen in North Africa the very same time and place also saw a massive use of Subsaharan African slavery in North Africa, and we can’t simply assume that the Europeans were able to completely change the genetic and phenotypic makeup of Berbers and Arabs (mostly Arabized Berbers), yet the millions of Subsaharan Africans taken by the Trans-Saharan Arab slave trade didn’t. Are Europeans intrinsecally more fertile and successful reproductively than Africans? I don’t think so.But that is just a secondary point when in fact we now know for a fact, due to modern genetic research, that the genetic makeup (Y-DNA, Mt-DNA and autosomal DNA) of the North Africans and of the Maghrebis in particular (even more particularly the Berbers) does not have much similarity at all and no major recent contribution from European populations. Berbers and Maghrebi Arabs do have a substantial Anatolian/European Neolithic Farmer-related ancestry, however archaeology and genetics (ancient DNA samples from Late Neolithic Morocco) have demonstrated that most of that genetic input is very ancient, dating to the time of the Neolithic expansion, so it has been present in North Africa since many millenniaIn fact, Maghrebis clearly form their own distinctive and pretty drifted genetic cluster in all genetic analyses I have seen, and the vast majority of their Y-DNA lineages are clearly North African in origin while their Mt-DNA lineages are mostly of remote West Eurasian origin, but generally closer to Middle Eastern lineages than to European ones and substantially drifted apart from both, which indicates a very old presence in North Africa, evolving independently. Moreover, some of them belong to haplogroups similar to those found in Ancient DNA sampls from North Africa, too.The “white invaders” (e.g. Vandals, French, Turks, etc.) that proponents of a “black North Africa overrun by Europeans after Antiquity” constantly talk about were naturally, mostly, men, but their long-term genetic impact in terms of paternal markers seems to have been modest at best. If that hypothesis were true, we’d expect Maghrebis to have much higher frequencies of “recent” (at least post-Bronze Age) subclades of Y-DNA haplogroups strongly linked to Europeans and West Asians, and to be strongly pulled autosomally toward Europeans (after all, for them to stop being very dark Negroids to become what they are today, the European admixture would have to have been massive).But there is no such thing, so, yes, the “white invaders and slaves changing the whole demographics of North Africa” is a fascinating story, but science doesn’t back it up, nor do historical accounts of that time talk of any massive migration of outsiders overwhelming or even displacing the local population. In fact, the signs of relevant and recent foreign gene flow in North Africa point more to the south, towards Subsaharan Africa, than to Europe.North Africans are today clearly much closer to Middle Easterners than to Europeans, but even that is just comparatively, because in fact they are clearly different from both other populations. So, no, there must be another explanation that fits the scientific evidences better.What I find kind of funny is that I have repeatedly seen this view of mine being derided as "eurocentric", that is, bear with me: those who claim that modern North Africa was deeply changed and shaped by European migrants accuse of "eurocentrism" those, like me, who claim that modern North Africa is still mainly inhabited by indigenous peoples who've been living there for millennia (though it has seen several admixture events not just with people from Europe, but also from other parts of Africa and from West Asia). Oh the irony!Okay, I know, it's apparently "eurocentric" to deny that, unlike the much more genetically homogeneous and more recently peopled continent of Asia, all African regions had pretty much similar populations, and North Africa could not have had anyone else but a Black African population more closely related either to West Africans (e.g. Fulani) or to East Africans (e.g. Horners) - they apparently couldn't decide about it until now, or maybe they're too focused on skin color to be aware that those two populations are completely distinct from each other genetically. Some use Mauritania as an example of how all of North Africa was like, even though the ethnic makeup of the country is clearly multiethnic and affected by modern migrations (Bidhan/Moor people are pretty much Saharawis and are Arab-Berbers; many other people are still culturally and even linguistically linked to West African ethnicities from further south).But, okay, let's give that hypothesis the benefit of doubt. So, they assume that, in relatively recent times, North Africa and the Maghreb in particular changed completely to a more European-shifted makeup from a mostly Senegalese-like or Ethiopian-like one (which is a bit confusing for those who claim that North Africa was of "pure" indigenous ancestry until the Middle Ages, given that Semitic and Cushitic Ethiopians have substantial confirmed West Eurasian ancestry, in the range of ~20% to ~50% depending on the ethnic group).Let's test it using a comparison of the genetic ancestry profile of modern Moroccan Berbers with that of Gambians, Mandenka, Ethiopians (Oromo), Spaniards, Italians, French and Saudi Arabians, modeling them as descendants of people similar to them. See the model below: unsurprisingly, a complete failure (a genetic distance of nearly 10%; a good result would be between roughly 1% and 3%), and the hypothesized "big impact" of European slavery and conquest (here represented by Spaniards, Italians and French people) is nowhere to be found except for Andalusians (who just happen to be the European people closest to North Africa). The model is telling us: look for another explanation, this one is really bad.[1] "distance%=9.9783 / distance=0.099783"  Berber_MAR_ERR Spanish_Andalucia 36.3 Saudi 28.9 Ethiopian_Oromo 20.2 Mandenka 14.5 Now, let's try modeling the same Moroccan Berber population as a simple mix of 4 ancient North African populations who had their autosomal DNA analyzed by reputable scientists and published in peer-reviewed publications (so, please, don't come to tell me about "studies" released by DNA testing companies in their websites, more often than not using questionable methodology with high margins of error). Those ancient DNA samples are: 1) a Paleolithic Moroccan of the Iberomaurusian culture; 2) an Early Neolithic Moroccan closely related to the former; 3) a Late Neolithic Moroccan with a lot of the Anatolian Neolithic Farmer-related ancestry that we can still find in significant proportions in Maghrebis; 4) a Bronze Age Egyptian individual from the New Kingdom era (about 3,300 years ago).[1] "distance%=7.8021 / distance=0.078021"  Berber_MAR_ERR MAR_Iberomaurusian 36.5 MAR_LN 32.8 Egypt_New_Kingdom 30.8 Yes, not very good, but still quite better than the hypothesis of a simple West/East African-like people + “recent” European/Middle Eastern migrants mix. However, if you add some ancestral sources to account for the minor but substantial Subsaharan African gene flow (here, 3 options: Mandenka, Yoruba and Dinka), which is very divergent from the ancient North Africans, the fits become a lot better and thus pretty likely to be close to the historical truth:[1] "distance%=3.3984 / distance=0.033984"  Berber_MAR_ERR MAR_LN 38.6 Egypt_New_Kingdom 28.1 MAR_Iberomaurusian 20.6 Yoruba 12.6 That is, this Berber population can be broadly modelled as being 87.4% similar to ancient North Africans (Morocco and Egypt) with an additional 12.6% Subaharan African ancestry. Of course it’d be anachronistic and even delusional to claim that these results actually mean that Moorish North Africans were almost fully Subsaharan African-like in the Middle Ages, and in the last millennium they mixed with peoples who were very close to ancient North African individuals from 3,300 to 16,000 years ago and had somehow remained in isolation far from North Africa - and they mixed so, sooo much that they became a small minority in their own lands (those people must’ve been really numerous, then, and they didn’t come from Europe or Asia Minor, either). A really implausible scenario.Now, if you consider that the Late Neolithic Moroccan sample was just one among many other expanding groups that were part of the spread of an agricultural lifestyle originally from Anatolia and Southeastern Europe, you might want to add just two more Neolithic European/Anatolian Farmer (EEF/ANF) reference populations to see if the fits improve - and, yes, they do.Now we have a model with a pretty nice level of genetic distance (1.81%), still confirming that this Moroccan Berber population has significant indigenous (Paleolithic + Early Neolithic) Moroccan ancestry (~32%) not found in such high proportions anywhere else in Africa, and that most of their “European” ancestry is in fact owed to very ancient migrations during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic eras, more than 5,000 years ago.[1] "distance%=1.816 / distance=0.01816"  Berber_MAR_ERR  MAR_Iberomaurusian 25.30 Iberia_Southwest_EN 23.40 Egypt_New_Kingdom 20.75 Anatolia_Barcin_C 10.40 Mandenka 9.65 MAR_EN 6.40 Yoruba 4.10 Now, just to make sure our analysis is sound and credible, let’s just take a look at how modern North African DNA samples compare to ancient North African DNA samples and vice-versa: what modern/ancient populations, respectively, are closest to them? The results again conform to the previously displayed scientific evidences, with modern Maghrebis closely related to ancient Maghrebis, and ancient Maghrebis being most related genetically to modern Maghrebis:Closest single item distances to: MODERN ALGERIANS1 - Canary Islands Guanche: 0.044230892 - Iberia Central (Copper Age) “African” outlier: 0.064698283 - Morocco (Late Neolithic): 0.123327914 - Egypt (New Kingdom): 0.148325835 - Egypt (Late Period): 0.149364226 - Egypt (Hellenistic): 0.151304407 - England (Roman Era) Near East migrant: 0.152408978 - Iberia (Southeast) c. 5-8th CE: 0.16485810Closest single item distances to: IBEROMAURUSIAN1 - Moroccan Berber (Tiznit): 0.21089402 - Saharawi: 0.21901973 - Moroccan (South): 0.21998874 - Moroccan Berber (Errachidia): 0.23124775 - Moroccan (Arab-Berbers): 0.24874856 - Mozabite Berbers: 0.26632467 - Tunisian (Chenini Berbers): 0.2665761Closest single item distances to: EARLY NEOLITHIC MOROCCO1 - Moroccan Berber (Tiznit): 0.20213002 - Saharawi: 0.21000033 - Moroccan (South): 0.21741184 - Moroccan Berber (Errachidia): 0.22238245 - Moroccan (Arab-Berbers): 0.23944926 - Mozabite Berbers: 0.24101077 - Tunisia (Chenini Berbers): 0.25412568 - Algerian: 0.2569358Closest single item distances to: MEDIEVAL GUANCHES (7th-11th CE)1 - Moroccan (North): 0.021401252 - Tunisian (Chenini Berber): 0.023430833 - Mozabite Berber: 0.031529614 - Tunisian (Arab-Berber): 0.043416735 - Tunisian (Sened Berber): 0.043659396 - Algerian: 0.04423097 - Moroccan (Arab-Berber): 0.055168848 - Moroccan Berber (Errachidia): 0.05533454Closest single item distances to: GENETIC OUTLIER IN CENTRAL IBERIA (COPPER AGE)1 - Tunisian Berber (Chenini): 0.055680602 - Mozabite Berber: 0.055772853 - Moroccan (North): 0.057277464 - Tunisian (Arab-Berbers): 0.064639635 - Algerian (Arab-Berbers): 0.064698286 - Tunisian (Sened Berbers): 0.064717977 - Moroccan Berber (Errachidia): 0.068208608 - Saharawi: 0.06977882So, the main conclusions and the TL;DR are:The medieval Moors from North Africa were not predominantly black Africans more closely related to any Subsaharan African population than to modern Mediterranean Maghrebis (whether Berbers or Arabo-Berbers), even though part of them must have been black Africans with far more Subsaharan African ancestry, as North Africa was not isolated from lands south of the Sahara back then;Except for low-scale and gradual admixture with other populations (not just Europeans or Middle Easterners, in fact even more so with Subaharan Africans), nothing much happened to the medieval Moors, and in fact modern North Africans are still the closest genetically even to people who lived in the region many millennia ago, let alone during the Middle Ages, less than 1,000 years ago.The hypothesis that there was some mass movement of Europeans that overwhelmed the local population and, mixing with it, completely prevailed over the native elements to form an entirely new population doesn’t hold water when you gather scientific data to assess it. Archaeological and documented evidences do not indicate that, and lots of DNA samples from North Africa or of recent North African origin (in Iberia, mainly) point to the fact that, though of course they are not an unmixed and isolated continuity of the ancients, modern Maghrebis are by far the main descendants of the people who lived in North Africa in ancient times. The “European thing” some people see in North Africans is owed only in a minor part to European invasions and slave trafficking after Classical Antiquity, and in fact derives mostly from shared ancestry going back to the massive westward expansion of West Asian farmers, mostly (but not just) from Anatolia, between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago.