16 ms·

I just visited the site and their promo video at the top of the front page is all about two sisters finding each other. You cannot fault this company for findin

by brixon 12y ago

I just visited the site and their promo video at the top of the front page is all about two sisters finding each other. You cannot fault this company for finding unknown relatives. Hell, I know my dad was married/divorced before he married my mom and I want to do this to see if anything pops up, but will probably wait until the medical screen is available again. Note: They currently do not offer the medical checks due to government audit or something.

jrapdx3 12y ago
The issue is health-related genetic information must be given to the individual by a qualified genetic counselor. Informing an individual about genetic health risks requires counselors with adequate training re: potential outcomes associated with the genetic factors and ability to express these facts and concepts in plain language. To me that seems a sensible standard to uphold, and obviously not a task a company like 23andMe could responsibly accomplish. Perhaps there could be a mechanism for the test results to be forwarded to a qualified counselor who could go over the results with the individual who provided the genetic sample.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  Not only that but they also must prove that the services they are offering are scientifically and medically sound and they aren't just making shit up. And it doesn't look like these types of companies have a great track record.... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/i-had-my-dna-picture-taken-with-varying-results.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/i-had-my-dna-pictu... > 23andMe said my most elevated risks — about double the average for women of European ethnicity — were for psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, with my lifetime odds of getting the diseases at 20.2 percent and 8.2 percent. But according to Genetic Testing Laboratories, my lowest risks were for — you guessed it — psoriasis (2 percent) and rheumatoid arthritis (2.6 percent). > In the case of Type 2 diabetes, inconsistencies on a semantic level masked similarities in the numbers. G.T.L. said my risk was “medium” at 10.3 percent, but 23andMe said my risk was “decreased” at 15.7 percent. In fact, both companies had calculated my odds to be roughly three-quarters of the average, but they used slightly different averages — and very different words — to interpret the numbers. In isolation, the first would have left me worried; the second, relieved.

by brixon 12y ago

jrapdx3 12y ago

The issue is health-related genetic information must be given to the individual by a qualified genetic counselor. Informing an individual about genetic health risks requires counselors with adequate training re: potential outcomes associated with the genetic factors and ability to express these facts and concepts in plain language. To me that seems a sensible standard to uphold, and obviously not a task a company like 23andMe could responsibly accomplish. Perhaps there could be a mechanism for the test results to be forwarded to a qualified counselor who could go over the results with the individual who provided the genetic sample.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
Not only that but they also must prove that the services they are offering are scientifically and medically sound and they aren't just making shit up. And it doesn't look like these types of companies have a great track record.... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/i-had-my-dna-picture-taken-with-varying-results.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/i-had-my-dna-pictu... > 23andMe said my most elevated risks — about double the average for women of European ethnicity — were for psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, with my lifetime odds of getting the diseases at 20.2 percent and 8.2 percent. But according to Genetic Testing Laboratories, my lowest risks were for — you guessed it — psoriasis (2 percent) and rheumatoid arthritis (2.6 percent). > In the case of Type 2 diabetes, inconsistencies on a semantic level masked similarities in the numbers. G.T.L. said my risk was “medium” at 10.3 percent, but 23andMe said my risk was “decreased” at 15.7 percent. In fact, both companies had calculated my odds to be roughly three-quarters of the average, but they used slightly different averages — and very different words — to interpret the numbers. In isolation, the first would have left me worried; the second, relieved.