3 ms·

Without getting into a semantics argument about whether your example is even really a freedom or not (just like I could say "clearly my freedom to read minds is

Without getting into a semantics argument about whether your example is even really a freedom or not (just like I could say "clearly my freedom to read minds isn't respected because it doesn't even work!!!!"), I think there is a huge, ridiculous, and obvious difference between physically assaulting someone and giving you data about your genome. I am an adult, I paid for 23andme with my money, and I understand the limitations of their data. If I'm worried about something in particular I'll go to the doctor, since they spell it out all over the place that none of this stuff is final (not to mention the fact that the only thing they even ever tell you is like "1% elevated risk"). I don't need mama government stepping in and making sure I'm not being mislead (which is hilarious because it is on the other hand 100% legal to be a fortune teller and tell someone not to worry since that pesky cancer won't be terminal according to these tarot cards).

pflats 13y ago
The FDA is reacting to the marketing/advertising, not the product itself. If the fortune teller was promoting himself as "Bob the Medical Psychic" who can predict whether your cancer will be terminal, then that's a different story. You're not allowed to make medical claims in advertisements that you can't back up. Cheerios famously got into trouble for claiming it's heart-healthy or some such.
exelius 13y ago
Yeah, but you have to think of the precedent: if 23andme doesn't have to provide proof that their results are accurate, there's nothing stopping me from starting a company that reads the lines on your palm and tells you if you will develop cancer. Regardless of the number of disclaimers they attach, people will use it to make medical decisions, and 23andme was aggressively advertising capabilities they had not proven. There is (and should be) a higher standard of proof for medical services/devices/etc. The FDA was started because companies were making medicines that either didn't work or weren't safe and people were relying on them. Consumers lost faith in the health care industry, so we have a much higher standard of care. I understand that it's expensive, difficult and time consuming to fulfill this higher burden of proof, but the alternative applied across the entire market really just shifts those costs to the consumer while degrading confidence in the market for medical services overall.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  > Yeah, but you have to think of the precedent: if 23andme doesn't have to provide proof that their results are accurate, there's nothing stopping me from starting a company that reads the lines on your palm and tells you if you will develop cancer Hate to break it to you, but this is already the case, and it had nothing to do with the "precedent" of 23andme. Go walk into a church of scientology or go read "The Secret" and tell me that's not what they're offering. Sure, they don't use the word "medical", but it doesn't matter. You are suffering from an educational bias, your worldview is completely divorced from that of the people you are trying to "protect". Most people don't understand that the term medical is no a mere colloquialism, nor do they understand that the lack of that term is a negative implication on the substance at hand. I speak from experience, my aunt died because she went to see quacks instead of a real doctor, despite all the information in the world available to her. Its perfectly legal to tell someone that doctors are full of shit and crystals are the real way to cure something. And you know what? At some point you need to just be OK with that. If not its just white man's burden all over again rebranded as "rich man's burden". > The FDA was started because companies were making medicines that either didn't work or weren't safe and people were relying on them. Hilarious. You want further proof of what I'm talking about? Go to the supplements isle at a grocery store. All that stuff is bullshit and often even specifically says "not approved by the FDA". Guess what? Its still a billion dollar business, and there are people who swear by that stuff and don't trust doctors. No one notices, cares, or understands. Again, your problem is that you are attacking this from a rational position and think that that is how other people operate as well, its not. You are kidding yourself if you think the FDA has succeeded in this goal. > I understand that it's expensive, difficult and time consuming to fulfill this higher burden of proof Ah and now we reach the best part about the FDA: that it effectively makes even educated people worse at making decisions. Despite the fact that the FDA has repeatedly been shown to be corrupt or in bed with certain companies, "approved by the FDA" is still a considered a trusted metric not requiring much further thought. Its not. The FDA has no competition and, like any government agency, incredibly rarely suffers consequences for being corrupt or making mistakes. Most people don't know "the burden of proof" required (and if you read about how bad doctors are at understanding statistics you wouldn't trust that burden of proof anyways).

pflats 13y ago

The FDA is reacting to the marketing/advertising, not the product itself. If the fortune teller was promoting himself as "Bob the Medical Psychic" who can predict whether your cancer will be terminal, then that's a different story. You're not allowed to make medical claims in advertisements that you can't back up. Cheerios famously got into trouble for claiming it's heart-healthy or some such.

exelius 13y ago

Yeah, but you have to think of the precedent: if 23andme doesn't have to provide proof that their results are accurate, there's nothing stopping me from starting a company that reads the lines on your palm and tells you if you will develop cancer. Regardless of the number of disclaimers they attach, people will use it to make medical decisions, and 23andme was aggressively advertising capabilities they had not proven. There is (and should be) a higher standard of proof for medical services/devices/etc. The FDA was started because companies were making medicines that either didn't work or weren't safe and people were relying on them. Consumers lost faith in the health care industry, so we have a much higher standard of care. I understand that it's expensive, difficult and time consuming to fulfill this higher burden of proof, but the alternative applied across the entire market really just shifts those costs to the consumer while degrading confidence in the market for medical services overall.

tolmasky 13y ago
> Yeah, but you have to think of the precedent: if 23andme doesn't have to provide proof that their results are accurate, there's nothing stopping me from starting a company that reads the lines on your palm and tells you if you will develop cancer Hate to break it to you, but this is already the case, and it had nothing to do with the "precedent" of 23andme. Go walk into a church of scientology or go read "The Secret" and tell me that's not what they're offering. Sure, they don't use the word "medical", but it doesn't matter. You are suffering from an educational bias, your worldview is completely divorced from that of the people you are trying to "protect". Most people don't understand that the term medical is no a mere colloquialism, nor do they understand that the lack of that term is a negative implication on the substance at hand. I speak from experience, my aunt died because she went to see quacks instead of a real doctor, despite all the information in the world available to her. Its perfectly legal to tell someone that doctors are full of shit and crystals are the real way to cure something. And you know what? At some point you need to just be OK with that. If not its just white man's burden all over again rebranded as "rich man's burden". > The FDA was started because companies were making medicines that either didn't work or weren't safe and people were relying on them. Hilarious. You want further proof of what I'm talking about? Go to the supplements isle at a grocery store. All that stuff is bullshit and often even specifically says "not approved by the FDA". Guess what? Its still a billion dollar business, and there are people who swear by that stuff and don't trust doctors. No one notices, cares, or understands. Again, your problem is that you are attacking this from a rational position and think that that is how other people operate as well, its not. You are kidding yourself if you think the FDA has succeeded in this goal. > I understand that it's expensive, difficult and time consuming to fulfill this higher burden of proof Ah and now we reach the best part about the FDA: that it effectively makes even educated people worse at making decisions. Despite the fact that the FDA has repeatedly been shown to be corrupt or in bed with certain companies, "approved by the FDA" is still a considered a trusted metric not requiring much further thought. Its not. The FDA has no competition and, like any government agency, incredibly rarely suffers consequences for being corrupt or making mistakes. Most people don't know "the burden of proof" required (and if you read about how bad doctors are at understanding statistics you wouldn't trust that burden of proof anyways).