[maratd]

Second, I think we need regulation here

You have no business telling other people what information they can or cannot acquire, and by what means they do so. Even if you're right, you still have no business dictating to others what they can and cannot do, simply because you consider yourself to be more learned and qualified to make a diagnosis.

I went to the doctor. I needed to have specific tests done, because my ethnicity is prone to very specific genetic defects in children. My wife and I needed to know if we had the appropriate markers and if precautions should be taken. I was quoted $3000 per person. That would be $6000 for myself and my wife.

23andme does those same tests and more, for $100 each. On top of that, our doctor is willing to use their results and add it to our medical records.

Again, who declared you or anyone, fit to determine which information I'm privy to and how I go about retrieving it?

[sixcorners]

> you still have no business dictating to others what they can and cannot do, simply because you consider yourself to be more learned and qualified to make a diagnosis.

You cannot lie to the consumer about your product.

[maratd]

Who lied? 23andme is a social network with a twist. They are not pretending to be your doctor. In fact, they make you read various disclosures that reinforce that self-obvious fact.

[sixcorners]

I was responding specifically to the claim that "you still have no business dictating to others what they can and cannot do." As far as 23andme is concerned, if they are not making any medical claims then they should have nothing to worry about. The linked to article linked to another article that said as much.

[prat]

So I assume you are also against FDA regulation to force pharma companies to list adverse reactions alongside there drug commercials? If you are, then the discussion is mute, if you aren't then your point is.

[Symmetry]

I think there's a large difference between prohibiting the disclosure of information, and requiring it.