Is DNA testing testing through companies such as "DNA and me" or any of the others of any benifit?
If so what was the (personal) value, how much did it cost and what was learned?
My whole family did the test, it was very instructive and the reports are interesting. I recommend it.
Thanks for answering Doone.
What did you learn?
How much did it cost?
Was potential health risk information based on the DNA profile provided, or was that an extra fee?
Depending upon how far back you go we are all from Africa, or Amobeas.
I imagine your family found out they were related along with different things in the woodpile as well as needles in the haystacks.
A friend of mine took one of the widely advertized DNA tests.
He said the information was for the most part everything he already knew about his family and upbringing.
He said he thought it was a hook to get him to take bate to bite on an ancessteral website.
I've heard others say some DNA companies and related web sites are run and managed by the LDS (Mormons).
It was about $100 as we had a discount. I learned a lot as it had many reports on health, ancestry etc. No health flags but I did learn I was about 3+ percent Neanderthal.
Does that matter?
Did the DNA test have anything about the SS7G8 group?
SS7G8 Ethnic Group And Religious Group Of SW Asia
If not how many groups did the test check?
How many groups are there?
How many pages was the report?
What benifit did you gain from your DNA test?
I wonder how much DNA test reaults will effect "Health Care" and other insurance premiums.
Someone with a 'bald' gene isn't nececarrially bald.
From the New England Journal of Medicine.Perspective 23andMe and the FDA
n August 2013, the genetic-testing company 23andMe began running a compelling national television commercial, in which attractive young people said that for $99 you could learn “hundreds of things about your health,” including that you “might have an increased risk of heart disease, arthritis, gallstones, [or] hemochromatosis” (www.ispot.tv/ad/7qoF/23-and-me). It was the centerpiece of the company's campaign to sign up 1 million consumers. On November 22, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent 23andMe a warning letter ordering it to “immediately discontinue marketing the PGS [Saliva Collection Kit and Personal Genome Service] until such time as it receives FDA marketing authorization for the device.” On December 5, the company announced that it was complying with the FDA's demands and discontinued running the commercial, noting on its website, “At this time, we have suspended our health-related genetic tests to comply immediately with the [FDA] directive to discontinue new consumer access during our regulatory review process.”
23andMe's services relied on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) technology to identify genetic markers associated with 254 specific diseases and conditions (the list has grown over time), which, the company said, could inform people about their health and how to take steps to improve it. In the words of 23andMe's TV commercial, “Change what you can, manage what you can't.” In its warning letter, the FDA said it was concerned that 23andMe failed to supply any indication that it had “analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses.” The agency was also concerned about how consumers might use information concerning breast-cancer mutations and warfarin-related genotype results. The company and the FDA had been in continuous negotiations since July 2009, but in May 2013, the company stopped communicating with the agency. The company's failure to attempt to resolve the issues identified by the FDA, while it continued marketing the product, led to the warning letter. The FDA has not yet developed specific rules for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, and whether government regulation or private litigation will determine the future contours of DTC genomic sequencing will probably depend on the extent to which consumers and physicians support government regulation.1,2
23andMe had previously framed DTC genetic testing as consumer empowerment — giving people direct access to their genetic information without requiring them to go through a physician or genetic counselor. To oversimplify, the debate has been framed as a struggle between medical (or government) paternalism and individuals' right to information about ourselves. In this sense, it is not so different from the older debate about whether patients should have direct access to their medical records and test results, which was ultimately resolved in favor of direct patient access. We think the day will come when this framing is appropriate, but not until the diagnostic and prognostic capability of genomic information has been clinically validated.1,2
It seems reasonable to predict, for example, that in the next decade or sooner, a majority of health plans will make it easy for their members to have their entire genomes sequenced and linked to their electronic health records and will provide software to help people interrogate their own genomes, with or without the help of their physicians or a genetic counselor supplied by the health plan. This service will, of course, require a massive data bank of genome reference materials, and the FDA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology are collaborating on the development of reference materials.2 Before genomic tests have been validated, however, genomic information can be misleading — or just plain wrong — and could cause more harm than good in health care settings. In most cases, family history is likely to be at least as informative about an individual's health risks as SNP-based testing like that used by 23andMe. In this regard, the FDA's warning letter to 23andMe for its nonvalidated PGS, which resulted in 23andMe's ceasing to sell its product, is not currently depriving people of useful information; the agency is merely requiring that companies that want to sell their health-related medical devices to the public demonstrate to the FDA that they are safe and effective — in this case, that the tests do what the company claims they do. That is traditional consumer protection and what the public expects from the FDA.
Privacy is a closely related issue. How can the extremely private and personal information locked in our DNA be protected so that others cannot use it for their own purposes without our consent or make it available to people or organizations who could use it against us (e.g., by denying us life or disability insurance)? 23andMe has, for example, suggested that its longer-range goal is to collect a massive biobank of genetic information that can be used and sold for medical research and could also lead to patentable discoveries. Such uses seem reasonable so long as the consent of the DNA donors is properly obtained and their privacy is protected. Both of these requirements are, however, much more difficult to uphold than 23andMe seems to realize.3
How did the Nazi's know that people were Jews, Gypsies, or Romani people?
Don't think the eugenics thing can happen again?
Aside from that the guy with the bald gene who wasn't bald leads me to think much of this is still immature science which is being used for profit and may end up with negative consequences for health insurance premiums.