Post by scottyderp on Sept 14, 2016 12:02:11 GMT -5
I don't agree with the fears re: 23andme. If anything, the raw data can provide functional medicine docs with valuable info to treat diseases at the root, instead of create patches for symptoms.
I don't agree with the fears re: 23andme. If anything, the raw data can provide functional medicine docs with valuable info to treat diseases at the root, instead of create patches for symptoms.
The thing that freaked me out was talk about insurance companies using this data to determine your insurability, employers using it in hiring, etc. Tin-foil-hat-ish? Maybe
Post by pantsparty on Sept 14, 2016 12:15:03 GMT -5
I read an article about 23andme that noted the data provided could create "scares" in self-diagnosing. Meaning, if you have some type of genetic disorder, you really need to be seeing and talking to a doctor that provides insight into your particular disorder, health history, family history, etc.
There's also A TON we still don't know about genetics. Just look at how many people get lung cancer without smoking. So for many, the type of bland genetic information provided by these tests can either give a false impression of predisposition to health or illness.
I don't agree with the fears re: 23andme. If anything, the raw data can provide functional medicine docs with valuable info to treat diseases at the root, instead of create patches for symptoms.
The thing that freaked me out was talk about insurance companies using this data to determine your insurability, employers using it in hiring, etc. Tin-foil-hat-ish? Maybe
When I signed up, I opted out of participating in studies, sharing info, etc. I'm not sure how access would work w/r/t insurance companies. My doc had me take this test online (pay out of pocket), then upload to another program online to generate mutations. She looked at the info, made recs based on info that I brought in/shared with her online. Honestly, it made me more functional than I've been in a while, so it was worth it.
Post by MeMyselfandI on Sept 14, 2016 13:32:53 GMT -5
I did, with Ancestry and found it very interesting.
Africa 33% • Ivory Coast/Ghana 13% • Nigeria 10% • Trace Regions • 10% • Cameroon/Congo 4% • Mali 2% • Senegal 2% • Africa Southeastern Bantu 1% • Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers < 1% Asia < 1% • Trace Regions • < 1% • Asia South < 1% Europe 64% • Great Britain 24% • Europe West 22% • Trace Regions • 18% • Iberian Peninsula 6% • Scandinavia 4% • Europe East 3% • Finland/Northwest Russia 2% • Ireland 2% • Italy/Greece < 1% West Asia 2% • Trace Regions • 2% • Caucasus 2%
Trace Regions 17% Ivory Coast/Ghana 7% Nigeria 3% Africa Southeastern Bantu 3% Benin/Togo 1% Cameroon/Congo 1% Mali 1% Africa North < 1%
Europe 83%
Scandinavia 28% Great Britain 17% Ireland 12% Europe West 11% Iberian Peninsula 9%
Trace Regions 6% Italy/Greece
I'm interested/pleased to see the specificity of the results coming from Africa. My son wasn't adopted as an infant or anything, so he has some knowledge of his family of origin, but there's a lot he doesn't know or have access to because the relationship with his remaining biological relatives has degraded over time. I think he might find this cool!
I did it through Ancestry and was pretty surprised by the results, just like the people in the commercials.
41% Ireland 35% Great Britain 15% Scandinavia 5% Iberian Peninsula 1% Eastern European 1% West Asia <1% Finland/Northwest Russia <1% Western European <1% Africa
We bought 23&me for my dad on his 60th. The results were awesome and he even connected with 2 distant cousins who had finished most of the family tree on his paternal grandfather's side we're mostly Scot/Irish and we're linked to one of the guys that kidnapped St. Patrick and brought him to Ireland. DH and I will probably order kits for ourselves this year.
That is so cool! So, it can link you to people that you are related to through your DNA? I'm confused!
I read an article about 23andme that noted the data provided could create "scares" in self-diagnosing. Meaning, if you have some type of genetic disorder, you really need to be seeing and talking to a doctor that provides insight into your particular disorder, health history, family history, etc.
There's also A TON we still don't know about genetics. Just look at how many people get lung cancer without smoking. So for many, the type of bland genetic information provided by these tests can either give a false impression of predisposition to health or illness.
While I see this, many people don't understand the free or for pay online programs that read results. I know because I've looked into these programs and know many others who have in FB groups I'm in.
Having looked at it myself and through my functional medicine doc, I got a lot more out of the Doctor and it was scary true, both compared to blood work and family medical history. I didn't glean much from it on my own. I literally have 30+ pages now confirming everything from low seratonin in the brain to my ability to (or lack thereof) to metabolize caffeine.
There are certain genes it won't test. The gene associated with my sisters cancer was not, and I'll need to see a geneticist. That's ok, it's a rare form of cancer and shit happens.
What I love is being able to look at the raw data and also being able to determine what medicines would work best based on your genetic makeup.
I'm a fan. Obviously. But I do see the danger in people trying to self diagnose and be hypochondriacs. On the other hand, I think it's important to allow patients to take health into their own hands instead of blindly having a doctor tell you you're ok, when you know you're not. I'm obviously a little jaded. A think there needs to be a balance
I read an article about 23andme that noted the data provided could create "scares" in self-diagnosing. Meaning, if you have some type of genetic disorder, you really need to be seeing and talking to a doctor that provides insight into your particular disorder, health history, family history, etc.
There's also A TON we still don't know about genetics. Just look at how many people get lung cancer without smoking. So for many, the type of bland genetic information provided by these tests can either give a false impression of predisposition to health or illness.
While I see this, many people don't understand the free or for pay online programs that read results. I know because I've looked into these programs and know many others who have in FB groups I'm in.
Having looked at it myself and through my functional medicine doc, I got a lot more out of the Doctor and it was scary true, both compared to blood work and family medical history. I didn't glean much from it on my own. I literally have 30+ pages now confirming everything from low seratonin in the brain to my ability to (or lack thereof) to metabolize caffeine.
There are certain genes it won't test. The gene associated with my sisters cancer was not, and I'll need to see a geneticist. That's ok, it's a rare form of cancer and shit happens.
What I love is being able to look at the raw data and also being able to determine what medicines would work best based on your genetic makeup.
I'm a fan. Obviously. But I do see the danger in people trying to self diagnose and be hypochondriacs. On the other hand, I think it's important to allow patients to take health into their own hands instead of blindly having a doctor tell you you're ok, when you know you're not. I'm obviously a little jaded. A think there needs to be a balance
I think the point is you're doing it the "right" way - in conjunction with a medical professional. ITA that you can't 100% rely on doctors, especially if you've been dealing with a long-term medical situation. That's really neat that you have the info about how certain medicines will work based on your genetic makeup.