Pages

Jump to bottom

17 comments

1 freetoken  Sun, Feb 2, 2014 4:54:27pm

This seems like spam.

BTW, the company in the UK linked wouldn’t get FDA approval to sell in this country, if 23andMe can’t (and who btw charge much less than the company you list.) And your company EasyDNA does not list which SNPs it tests.

Looking at their website I’m less than impressed. They want 299 Pounds for something that can be had for much less by American companies (such as for Paternity testing.) 15 “markers” for a “non legal” paternity test is a joke - any of the cheaper $99 US tests can do the same thing and more reliably.

The UK is notorious for having these rip-off DNA testing companies.

BTW, the claim in this (maybe copied from somewhere else)
that the ACA is going to radically increase wait times like in Canada or the UK is straight out of the anti-ACA playbook.

2 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Feb 2, 2014 6:01:07pm

Wait, what? Long waiting times in Canada? Which ass did the OP pull this fact out of?

I live in Canada and I’ve never had to wait over four weeks to see a specialist. I’ve had to see two in the last five years; a urologist and an allergy specialist.

The wait for the urologist, including getting snipped, was less than three weeks. The allergy specialist was about two weeks.

On the other hand I know my wife, who lives in the States has had to wait hours for a scheduled appointment. She just told me the longest wait was eight hours and the shortest was two. She always has to wait. And the time she had to wait for a specialist before the ACA was three months.

So I know this whole page is bullshit.

3 JmpMaster  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 2:56:52am

re: #1 freetoken

There are hundreds of companies around the world that do DNA testing, the scope of which varies from company to company. Unfortunately , nearly no DNA testing is used for the best purpose available which would be, in my my opinion and that of many others, to do medical histories to get an accurate assessment of medical histories. That link was simply to show how easy it is to get genetic predisposition testing done on your own.

The real question is , why do our Doctors here not do it as a routine standard of care? That would be 100x more accurrate than asking somebody what type of cancers the paternal or maternal family had and trying to use the often guessed at answer in response.

So far as th eanti ACA - that has anything to do with - though I do admit using the word “ObamaCare” in the title as a trigger word to increase views as catchy shock titles are all the rage and getting the attention of the public is difficult without them. The only references in the story to the ACA was that it will increase access, increased access will strain capacity (and I am not sure how somebody would see it as a bad thing if people have greater access) and th efact the the old argument for not getting DNA testing done because of potential for increased insurance rates no longer applies due to the ACA.

So far as wait times - 1 month in and there have been numerous surveys done showing that wait times are already increasing - forbes.com
- as just one example but feel free to research yourself for others.

4 JmpMaster  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:01:20am

re: #2 Romantic Heretic

You are fortunate to have never had a wait time or had to see a specialist obviously. I am unsure what province you are in or I would gladly research you province and see what the “official” wait time is there but this is a pretty good graphic of wait times for various (which has little to do with the standard of care and is more a statement to the need to prioritize patients in a manner that has a basis in science and fact based on need as opposed to simply in order they are placed on a list -

oecd-ilibrary.org

5 freetoken  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 4:13:35am

re: #3 JmpMaster

… why do our Doctors here not do it as a routine standard of care?

Because insurance companies will not pay for a DNA test unless there is a particular test needed for an identified pathology. Health insurance companies do not reimburse for prophylactic DNA testing.

6 freetoken  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 4:14:40am

re: #3 JmpMaster

And your Page still sounds like it was written as part of a larger ad campaign.

7 JmpMaster  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 5:09:53am

re: #5 freetoken

I am aware that they do not- but preventative care is known to be far more effective than treatment - and the issue is that we use patient history as a standard part of diagnostics and determining treatment. I am unsure about advertising campaign- the point is you can get it on your own but why should you have to? If it were part of basic medical testing a single time then it would be done for ever and it would be far far cheaper to be done through standardized testing than as an extra for personal use.

Instead we recommend mammograms for all at a particular age though testing would make it very clear that some need it far earlier and some much later or less frequently, along with colonoscopies, and dozens of other routine tests. Freeing up these resources so those that needed would have greater availability is clearly a better method than setting a date by an insurance company to say “we will pay for 1 at 40 years old then one every 5 years for everybody”

In addition as a standard part of care provided by hospitals as opposed to private laboratories (which you pointed out one has no idea to the value or competency of a private laboratory ) the testing would be standardized and made much cheaper by volume and the results could be consolidated for more effective treatments as DNA profile also is directly attributable to the success of various treatments. The advertising campaign would be simply that it should be hospitals and not private labs making this available. Perhaps you are of the belief that you filling out a paper chart about your family medical history that may show it is “possible” to have a hereditary disposition to a disease is of more value than the certainty of it… You may want to look over this article for more details on why it is more effective with actual results - scopeblog.stanford.edu

I am sorry if the term Obamacare offended you - if you believe it is that inflammatory I may be able to change the title- (which is likely the only reason you read this) though the fact remains that higher utilization of existing facilities and increased patient care (which is clearly a GOOD thing) will strain resources. The best way to reduce that strain is through better and more effective care , which many , including myself, believe can be achieved with improving screenings and the best screening for the widest variety of things available is through genetic disposition testing , which screens for lifetime risks and allows patients to make better lifestyle choices based on risks and doctors to make a more accurate diagnosis as well as make more effective treatment options based on facts as opposed to guesswork.

8 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 5:57:23am

re: #4 JmpMaster

You are fortunate to have never had a wait time or had to see a specialist obviously. I am unsure what province you are in or I would gladly research you province and see what the “official” wait time is there but this is a pretty good graphic of wait times for various (which has little to do with the standard of care and is more a statement to the need to prioritize patients in a manner that has a basis in science and fact based on need as opposed to simply in order they are placed on a list -

oecd-ilibrary.org

Jesus Christ! Can’t you read?

I have had to see a specialist, twice in the last five years. I told you how long I had to wait to see them.

I’ve never known a single Canadian who has ever bitched about the wait times here.

Man, I know you don’t like the ACA but I don’t see how genetics is going to help at all, unless you want to sort people into ‘categories’ unrelated to their actual health. They call that eugenics. Look it up.

9 JmpMaster  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 6:17:28am

re: #8 Romantic Heretic

I read very well, but thank you for asking. I am glad you do not have an issue personally with wait times but suggest you read your local newspaper more or tell me what it is and I will link the stories of complaints to you that i am 100% certain i will find. You may refer to this as well if you like however- fraserinstitute.org


BTW - you do not understand the word eugenics - that is the breeding or selection of people for the purpose of breeding for traits -the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis. — it has nothing to do with identifying known risks that exist and that you are already being screened for in a paper family health history questionnaire (just inaccurately with poor reliability of results).

10 wrenchwench  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:35:55am

re: #9 JmpMaster

I read very well, but thank you for asking. I am glad you do not have an issue personally with wait times but suggest you read your local newspaper more or tell me what it is and I will link the stories of complaints to you that i am 100% certain i will find. You may refer to this as well if you like however- fraserinstitute.org

What We Do

From research to round tables

The Fraser Institute is engaged in the following activities:

Dynamic Events
We hold a wide range of events with the opportunity to hear internationally acclaimed economists and influential policy figures, such as Margaret Thatcher, Danish environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg, and Milton Friedman

11 gwangung  Mon, Feb 3, 2014 6:52:24pm

re: #4 JmpMaster

You are fortunate to have never had a wait time or had to see a specialist obviously. I am unsure what province you are in or I would gladly research you province and see what the “official” wait time is there but this is a pretty good graphic of wait times for various (which has little to do with the standard of care and is more a statement to the need to prioritize patients in a manner that has a basis in science and fact based on need as opposed to simply in order they are placed on a list -

oecd-ilibrary.org

I’ve seen this before and it’s almost always bullcrap, not always measuring like to like.

You don’t seem entirely a master of your arguments or supporting data. Perhaps you can demonstrate you know what your talking about?

12 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Feb 4, 2014 10:06:34am

re: #9 JmpMaster

I read very well, but thank you for asking. I am glad you do not have an issue personally with wait times but suggest you read your local newspaper more or tell me what it is and I will link the stories of complaints to you that i am 100% certain i will find. You may refer to this as well if you like however- fraserinstitute.org

BTW - you do not understand the word eugenics - that is the breeding or selection of people for the purpose of breeding for traits -the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis. — it has nothing to do with identifying known risks that exist and that you are already being screened for in a paper family health history questionnaire (just inaccurately with poor reliability of results).

The effen Fraser Institute? Those jackasses have done more damage to Canada than any other group in the nation.

They start from the assumption that public health care is Communism and therefore useless and evil. All their ‘studies’ are to prove this point. I do not regard them as a disinterested party.

So, I, who live here in Canada cannot possibly understand that the wait times in Canada suck even though I’ve never encountered them nor have I known people who encountered them? Man, it must be nice being clairvoyant.

And I understand the meaning of the word ‘eugenics’ just fine. I still fail to see how screening people’s genes will help with the long wait times in the States, even though those existed before the ACA.

13 JmpMaster  Tue, Feb 4, 2014 12:15:05pm

re: #12 Romantic Heretic

While I admit to not being at all familiar with the fraser institute -as I was simply looking for a source that boasted Canadian origin that has a high rting of reliability according to many standards, I will certainly bow to your expertise on what Canadian source may be correct.

You may want to refer to your government wait times by province that list wait times by province and specialty that nearly all exceed 4 weeks health.gov.nl.ca

However is that is your benchmark and you are satisfied with it then I am glad you are satisfied.

You may also believe it is eugenics when they ask you if you have a family history of cancer or heart disease, and you may well believe your memory is better than a scientific test and be fortunate enough to actually know all of the family history and diseases unlike many people that due to adoption, geographical separation, divorce etc, and do not know there history at all. The reason they ask for medical history of families is it reduces unneeded tests and makes for more accurate diagnosis and more effective treatment, resulting in faster recoveries and fewer visits to the hospital with fewer invasive tests.

Since you have had years of universal access to public health care in Canada , you are used to certain things and your facilities do a better job meeting capacity requirements perhaps. That does not in anyway change average wait times. Overall there are numerous reasons why your public healthcare are better - but the US infrastructure is not in a position to equal that with 45 million potential new patients brought about by ACA that did not have legitimate access to care previously. Anything that will help both effectiveness of treatment and timeliness while infrastructure corrections are made would seem a good idea to most - apparently that does not include you. Since it does not in any way effect you as you have stated , I am unsure of your continued comments- your wait times exist it is fact and not a condemnation, you are satisfied with it - fine. I am happy for you.

14 mr.JA  Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:35:15am

Eh, DNA testing is great, but DNA x Environment is the real factor. Most SNPs related to diseases fail to predict larger than 0.5% of the variation based only on genetics, meaning that having a particular SNP does not really say all that much.

There are exceptions, such as the BRCA genes that have a very high correlation, but generally SNPs are an aid, but not a definitive tool.

Additionally, insurance companies would ultimately experience a decrease in costs for routine testing, so this would be a win for the public, the hospitals, and business.

I have big, big issues with this. I’m all for personalized medicine based on each individual condition, but it is a statistical disaster to test everyone with a headache for all 2.5 million SNPs and try to say something about that. Because the false-positive rate with many of these things is so incredibly high (especially if the disease has a very low frequency), this will absolutely jack-up prices of medical care by an astronomical account.

Let me give you an example: 0.001% of a relevant population gets colon cancer type X. There is a SNP related to this disease, that when you have this SNP, where 60% of the people who get colon cancer type X, have this SNP. (60% is huge in genetics btw)

So you go into hospital, get tested and find-out that you have this SNP - does this mean that you have 60% of the disease? Of course not! Because your chance in general is only 0.001% that you get it, does this mean that you have a 0.0006% of contracting the disease.

Most people will not understand this, and want to be tested further. Most of this testing is done for absolutely nothing, and will yield a ‘negative’.

Without a proper correction for bayesian statistics, general DNA profiling of everyone ‘because it can be done’ will be great for the pharmaceutical industry, but a disaster for the country, since an even larger percentage of the BNP will be spend on healthcare.

Again, personalized medicine has its place, and sure - DNA testing will become standard. However, I think this needs to happen in a clinical environment, and would prefer if private companies (who don’t have an interest in keeping healthcare costs down) stay out of this…

[And why on earth do you use a picture of a 2-decade old technique this is barely in use anymore? The first picture is a film from a polyacrylamide sequencing gel, loaded with radioactive samples - I’ve worked for over 10 years in science now, and during my first traineeship an older lab tech told us about loading radioactive gels (pipetting by mouth, nonetheless), but very few people had even used it back then. The picture looks cool, but give a very distorted view of how modern genetics work]

15 JmpMaster  Wed, Feb 5, 2014 10:34:34am

re: #14 mr.JA

Again, personalized medicine has its place, and sure - DNA testing will become standard. However, I think this needs to happen in a clinical environment, and would prefer if private companies (who don’t have an interest in keeping healthcare costs down) stay out of this…

That is why it should be done through hospitals, as part of a persons basic medical record, as opposed to as an adhoc test for the curious.

Of course environment plays a huge factor - which is an additional factor in favor of genetic pre-disposition testing as it would clearly identify to many the real risk factor of lifestyle choices and allow emphasis to be placed where needed, based upon risk and with the proper counseling of medical professionals.

Si far as how in depth should the test be and for how many factors? That is a scientific and medical question that goes beyond my scope of knowledge as well as the scope of this article. The point is simply even relatively basic testing will allow true scientific basis of increased risk of about 130 different common conditions and diseases and far far more accurately than the same information derived from a family health history questionnaire. So far as what “most people” would want to be tested further for - it is the same as any other medical question - it should be made by Doctors rather than insurance companies , and it should be made by Doctors using facts rather than guesswork.

(oh - and the pictures- why? because it looked cool - this is not a scientific piece and I have no idea what an actual DNA lab looks like nor does it particularly matter to me lol )

16 mr.JA  Wed, Feb 5, 2014 12:24:20pm
The point is simply even relatively basic testing will allow true scientific basis of increased risk of about 130 different common conditions and diseases and far far more accurately than the same information derived from a family health history questionnaire.

…and DNA testing is fairly standard in well-researched areas such as early-onset alzheimer and breastcancer. I don’t really see the added value of this article.

Moreover, this sentence:

There is no point in relying on written medical questionnaires as opposed to real science anymore.

Is completely missing the whole point I was trying to make above. You (direct) family is likely to have grown-up, and be exposed to a similar environment as you have - thus, these questionnaires are incredibly important to help link genetics to certain conditions.

That is a scientific and medical question that goes beyond my scope of knowledge as well as the scope of this article.

I’m sorry to be not-so-nice here, but if you don’t really comprehend the nature of DNA testing, or the statistical ramifications that testing 2.5m SNPs have, why do you write an article about it? It is a poorly written piece with very little information and bad, polarizing advice on a technique that is not controversial and that will be used in the future. I don’t really see the point.

17 JmpMaster  Wed, Feb 5, 2014 11:14:23pm

re: #16 mr.JA

While I do appreciate any and all input, yours is of little use. You fail to understand the basic point of the article and wish to discuss a scientific or technical slant that is not part of the discussion.

There are actually very simple facts - environment can be accurately assessed by basic questions and answers about lifestyle- genetic predisposition cannot. You can gain a hint or that possibly there is a hereditary factor , but you cannot know , regardless of family history, whether any individual actual carries the genetic markers. Further, the family history is in fact missing, incomplete, of very inaccurate in over 50% of patients.

The fact that this history is so often distorted makes the useful diagnostic of genetic pre-disposition largely useless. Further , the usefulness of actually treating the disease is in no way assisted by a family history, whereas the efficacy of many types of cancer treatments is very contingent on the exact genetic markers found in individuals. Genetic testing is not routinely used in early treatment of any disease because it is not available, if it were available then it would be.

Genetic testing IS NOT standard in either Alzheimers or breast cancer, occurring in less than 5% of all patients, despite the fact that breast cancer, like many other cancers, not only have identifiable risks, but known markers that provide indicators of the most effective treatment. Further, it is a little too late once the cancer has been diagnosed. The point of the testing is to allow lifestyle choices to be made PRIOR to onset , with the assistance of a physician, to reduce the occurrence, or to ensure more careful screening to catch it sooner. Your entire discussion is based on the use of genetic testing after disease, and that is a very poor use of resources.

While you seem to possess some knowledge of DNA testing from a scientific standpoint, that has little bearing on the topic of using genetic testing to determine risk factors to allocate resources and speed diagnosis in a medical setting. You want to discuss test tubes, while this is a focus on better healthcare for people. Looking for known genetic markers is not looking at the entire genome , you can easily screen for a large number of relatively common factors. You do not look for 2.5m SNP, which you either know and are attempting to sound impressive anyway, or it is you that are not educated on this topic and instead are remembering a text on basic genetics that you read some years ago.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 107 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 271 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1