|
|
|
|
|
|
by Florin_Andrei
3361 days ago
|
|
|
No. What's really happening is that they did provide a lot of probability estimates for some pretty serious stuff - back in the day before the FDA told them to stop doing it. I know because I carry a higher risk allele for a non-trivial disease (along with lower risk alleles for some other non-trivial diseases), and the test placed me in those corresponding statistical risk buckets which are different from the general population. Then the FDA came down on them like a ton of bricks. Now it sounds like they're reopening that door, slowly, step by step. I'm all for it. |
|
|
How do you know this is accurate?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/i-had-my-dna-p...
>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.