7 ms·

Navigenics, 23andMe slammed in government report

24 points by jamesbritt 16y ago

acangiano 16y ago
> were blasted by investigators from the U.S. Government Accountability Office for drawing unsupportable conclusions > from the gene samples they analyzed and making health predictions that didn't always jibe with their customers' actual medical conditions. I wish they held doctors, and others practicing pseduo-medicine, to the same standards.
- zavulon 16y ago
  How are the doctors practicing pseudo-medicine?
  - wooster 16y ago
    Chiropractic?
  - dublinclontarf 16y ago
    Over here in China, as you might expect, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is quite popular. But after spending a year teaching in a TCM provincial level university, and talking to a number of the lecturers is it even real? A good few of the lecturers have been disciplined for complaining that TCM is for want of a better term "a load of crap". If the people teaching & practicing it think it's snake oil what does that say about it. And why is it called Traditional Chinese Medicine, why not just call it medicine if it works?
  - acangiano 16y ago
    I phrased it in an ambiguos way. What I meant is "doctors and people practicing pseudo-medicine". I wasn't implying that doctors are practicing pseudo-medicine (well, most of them anyway).
chaostheory 16y ago
I don't know about Navigenics but 23andMe clearly states in multiple places on their website, that their service isn't a medical diagnosis and it may be prone to error. As acangiano already posted, they obviously don't hold 'holistic' products to the same standard. I wonder what the government wants from them.
AngryParsley 16y ago
In one case, Navigenics called a donor's risk of prostate cancer above average, while 23andMe and deCODE considered his risk average and Pathway judged it to be below average, the report said. In another instance, a donor had a family history of heart disease, the report said, "yet all four companies predicted that she was at average risk for having a heart attack." Both of these examples are incredibly weak evidence. You need statistics to find the accuracy of these products, not anecdotes. Anyway, your genes are a more accurate gauge of disease risk than family history. When a doctor asks about family history, they would prefer to take a look at your genome. It's easy to have a family history of heart attack while having an average risk yourself. If your ancestors had typical genes, but lived a different lifestyle that caused them to be more prone to heart attack, they'd have heart attacks. Hell, they could just be unlucky.
- carbocation 16y ago
  > Anyway, your genes are a more accurate gauge of disease risk than family history. When a doctor asks about family history, they would prefer to take a look at your genome. This is not currently true, though in the far future it will be. Modern genetics has been slammed (unfairly, I think) for the fact that your genetics do not increase discrimination when compared to models including family history. In other words, for virtually every human disease, family history is a better predictor of risk than is your genetic profile. I stand to benefit personally and professionally when genetic risk overtakes family history, but it simply hasn't yet.
hotpockets 16y ago
Great, lets ban all information not approved by the state.
gcheong 16y ago
Response from 23andme: http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/07/23/gao-studies-science-non-scientifically/#more-6936 http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/07/23/gao-studies-science-n...
- moultano 16y ago
  Wow. That was remarkably polite given how unprofessional the original report was.
  - Elite 16y ago
    They don't have much of a choice but to defer. Political officials are notoriously vindictive. If 23andMe released a scathing response, it would be taken personally by some power hungry politico would make it his personal agenda to destroy the company. The only industry I can think of that basically told government "Go fuck yourselves" was wall street. Even Big Oil panders.
- dhimes 16y ago
  For those of you who are skimming this thread, read the response and skip the article. The GAO's report is premature on anything substantial, except (possibly) these companies should emphasize that some of their secondary "conclusions" are quite tentative. The response points out that there are good conclusions from these companies with which the GAO does not find exception. Key quote from response about function the GAO didn't disparage: [We] provide information about carrier status for single gene diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, as well as the fact that we provide information about a customer’s likely response to certain prescription medications that have been shown in clinical trials to have differing effects and side effects depending on a person’s genetic make-up

24 points by jamesbritt 16y ago

> were blasted by investigators from the U.S. Government Accountability Office for drawing unsupportable conclusions > from the gene samples they analyzed and making health predictions that didn't always jibe with their customers' actual medical conditions. I wish they held doctors, and others practicing pseduo-medicine, to the same standards.

zavulon 16y ago
How are the doctors practicing pseudo-medicine?
- wooster 16y ago
  Chiropractic?
- dublinclontarf 16y ago
  Over here in China, as you might expect, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is quite popular. But after spending a year teaching in a TCM provincial level university, and talking to a number of the lecturers is it even real? A good few of the lecturers have been disciplined for complaining that TCM is for want of a better term "a load of crap". If the people teaching & practicing it think it's snake oil what does that say about it. And why is it called Traditional Chinese Medicine, why not just call it medicine if it works?
- acangiano 16y ago
  I phrased it in an ambiguos way. What I meant is "doctors and people practicing pseudo-medicine". I wasn't implying that doctors are practicing pseudo-medicine (well, most of them anyway).

chaostheory 16y ago

I don't know about Navigenics but 23andMe clearly states in multiple places on their website, that their service isn't a medical diagnosis and it may be prone to error. As acangiano already posted, they obviously don't hold 'holistic' products to the same standard. I wonder what the government wants from them.

AngryParsley 16y ago

In one case, Navigenics called a donor's risk of prostate cancer above average, while 23andMe and deCODE considered his risk average and Pathway judged it to be below average, the report said. In another instance, a donor had a family history of heart disease, the report said, "yet all four companies predicted that she was at average risk for having a heart attack." Both of these examples are incredibly weak evidence. You need statistics to find the accuracy of these products, not anecdotes. Anyway, your genes are a more accurate gauge of disease risk than family history. When a doctor asks about family history, they would prefer to take a look at your genome. It's easy to have a family history of heart attack while having an average risk yourself. If your ancestors had typical genes, but lived a different lifestyle that caused them to be more prone to heart attack, they'd have heart attacks. Hell, they could just be unlucky.

carbocation 16y ago
> Anyway, your genes are a more accurate gauge of disease risk than family history. When a doctor asks about family history, they would prefer to take a look at your genome. This is not currently true, though in the far future it will be. Modern genetics has been slammed (unfairly, I think) for the fact that your genetics do not increase discrimination when compared to models including family history. In other words, for virtually every human disease, family history is a better predictor of risk than is your genetic profile. I stand to benefit personally and professionally when genetic risk overtakes family history, but it simply hasn't yet.

hotpockets 16y ago

Great, lets ban all information not approved by the state.

gcheong 16y ago

Response from 23andme: http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/07/23/gao-studies-science-non-scientifically/#more-6936 http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/07/23/gao-studies-science-n...

moultano 16y ago
Wow. That was remarkably polite given how unprofessional the original report was.
- Elite 16y ago
  They don't have much of a choice but to defer. Political officials are notoriously vindictive. If 23andMe released a scathing response, it would be taken personally by some power hungry politico would make it his personal agenda to destroy the company. The only industry I can think of that basically told government "Go fuck yourselves" was wall street. Even Big Oil panders.
dhimes 16y ago
For those of you who are skimming this thread, read the response and skip the article. The GAO's report is premature on anything substantial, except (possibly) these companies should emphasize that some of their secondary "conclusions" are quite tentative. The response points out that there are good conclusions from these companies with which the GAO does not find exception. Key quote from response about function the GAO didn't disparage: [We] provide information about carrier status for single gene diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, as well as the fact that we provide information about a customer’s likely response to certain prescription medications that have been shown in clinical trials to have differing effects and side effects depending on a person’s genetic make-up