DNA kit to test best diet and exercise

24

Replies

  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    If it was cheap and you could get some useful information other than what exercise or diet you should be doing then maybe yes for entertainment value. I have strong doubts unless they ask a lot of qualifying questions upfront like weight, height, build and fitness level. Of course if they ask all of that what is the test revealing?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    jesselee10 wrote: »
    I just purchased a DNA kit that will test what diet and exercise program is best for my body. Has anyone done one of these and did the results make a difference when followed?

    Heard of it.

    Determines if you have slightly more fast or slow twitch fibers for the exercise side of things.

    Diet attempts to see if allergies or sensitivities to things. This is less known for what genes might show other things.

    In either case - it's giving advice for what you might consider the minors that allow the 15% improvement when you've already done the majors taking care of the 85% of stuff that will show improvement.

    Like if a pro athlete and to find a certain type of workout can get you that last little bit of improvement easier rather than harder.

    Now, I guess if a teenager wondering if you should go for sprints or endurance length race training and events - might be interesting.
    But I'm pretty sure a good coach can look at equal training and determine the same type of preference.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    jesselee10 wrote: »
    Well I am pretty fit already just trying to loose the extra 5-10% body fat. I have seen high end fitness people do this test and results would indicate if individual would be better on a higher carb diet va high protein, high fat, etc and exercise based on individual. I already do lots of weight training but interested to see if adding liss cardio or hitt would be better for my body type.

    For those talking about selling my dna to government I did think of that but with all the stuff out there now with smart phones I think that is more worrisome. The only thing that could be crazy is if they can telepathically alter my being with the dna they have😬

    The more science fiction you read/watch, the scarier it becomes, right??? :lol:
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    edited October 2018
    We proved family relationships off 30 year old envelopes. One hair. A toothbrush. Not submissable in court when samples are clandestine, but it can be done. Lots of people just want to know stuff about family for personal reasons, but if you're hoping to collect on George Washington's legacy - well...

    Some of this is kinda scary, but we leave our DNA behind a hundred times a day..
  • Sunna_W
    Sunna_W Posts: 744 Member
    edited October 2018
    23andMe offers anecdotal information if you opt in and do the health quizes. (It compares your answers with other people with your same general DNA and then says that you may have an increased allergic reaction to mosquitoes, or get more cavities than average, for example.) All that aside, by reducing calories and eating differently (my choice) I have lost weight and have been pretty consistent about keeping it off long term. But, that has nothing to do with DNA and everything to do with what I put in my mouth.
  • ata1anta
    ata1anta Posts: 115 Member
    So this made me curious. "Hey google, look up DNA Fitness Test" and I got a bunch of hits.
    This was an interesting article which also had some science saying it's not really there yet.
    In this article the author takes 3 tests and gets very different results.
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    I read an article summarizing the scientific info we have on these tests so far, which said basically that it's a nice idea but the data isn't there....If predictions based on reading DNA can't manage something simple and easily observed like eye color yet, what makes you think they can manage something complex and hard to observe like dietary benefits?

    @jesselee10 I'd love to hear your take away from what they tell you and what you do with it. Sure, the science is still in the anecdotal phase, but who knows what will be discovered later.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    Okay, I understand identity theft. But DNA submitted under a Jane Doe, or even under my own name - how is that going to be used in a bad way other than with denying insurance? I just can't think of how...and I worked with this stuff for years. It certainly isn't going to be part of identity theft. And while I feel for your sister, it could happen to any of us. I'm sorry she went through that.

    I can see it being a fearful thing if someone is on the criminal spectrum. Those people definitely don't want their bio material "out."

    It's not like my doctor doesn't have plenty of my blood and other tissue. It would be easy enough to identify anyone who has been to a doctor, but it just isn't something that's done on the regular.

    What exactly is your fear about this? I'm genuinely interested.
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    Okay, I understand identity theft. But DNA submitted under a Jane Doe, or even under my own name - how is that going to be used in a bad way other than with denying insurance? I just can't think of how...and I worked with this stuff for years. It certainly isn't going to be part of identity theft. And while I feel for your sister, it could happen to any of us. I'm sorry she went through that.

    I can see it being a fearful thing if someone is on the criminal spectrum. Those people definitely don't want their bio material "out."

    It's not like my doctor doesn't have plenty of my blood and other tissue. It would be easy enough to identify anyone who has been to a doctor, but it just isn't something that's done on the regular.

    What exactly is your fear about this? I'm genuinely interested.

    That was my thought as well. OK, can't go out murdering or robbing people now! Right-o, no problem.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,426 MFP Moderator
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    I definitely agree. Companies are far more to fear than the government. Google and pretty much all social media has access to all your contacts, often can activate you microphone and so much more. Include the MFP app.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,426 MFP Moderator
    cmriverside wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    Okay, I understand identity theft. But DNA submitted under a Jane Doe, or even under my own name - how is that going to be used in a bad way other than with denying insurance? I just can't think of how...and I worked with this stuff for years. It certainly isn't going to be part of identity theft. And while I feel for your sister, it could happen to any of us. I'm sorry she went through that.

    I can see it being a fearful thing if someone is on the criminal spectrum. Those people definitely don't want their bio material "out."

    It's not like my doctor doesn't have plenty of my blood and other tissue. It would be easy enough to identify anyone who has been to a doctor, but it just isn't something that's done on the regular.

    What exactly is your fear about this? I'm genuinely interested.

    Not a bad thing, but a very interesting use of one of the results from a DNA company (might have been 23andme). But a 30 year old murder was solved recently because their brother went used one of the services.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    Okay, I understand identity theft. But DNA submitted under a Jane Doe, or even under my own name - how is that going to be used in a bad way other than with denying insurance? I just can't think of how...and I worked with this stuff for years. It certainly isn't going to be part of identity theft. And while I feel for your sister, it could happen to any of us. I'm sorry she went through that.

    I can see it being a fearful thing if someone is on the criminal spectrum. Those people definitely don't want their bio material "out."

    It's not like my doctor doesn't have plenty of my blood and other tissue. It would be easy enough to identify anyone who has been to a doctor, but it just isn't something that's done on the regular.

    What exactly is your fear about this? I'm genuinely interested.

    Not a bad thing, but a very interesting use of one of the results from a DNA company (might have been 23andme). But a 30 year old murder was solved recently because their brother went used one of the services.

    Well I would say that's a very good outcome. :)

    Yeah, that was a case of using a family member to match DNA to a cold case.

    More of that, please.

  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    edited October 2018
    psuLemon wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    I get a kick out of people who go in for these DNA tests. Would you willingly submit your DNA to a database operated by the government? The answer is almost universally HELL NO. But you're willing to pay a private corporation to take your DNA in exchange for some largely trivial information in return?? Did you read the agreement saying what will happen to your DNA when you get your trivial answers? Do you know what that private corporation can now do with your DNA?

    It's like this but with DNAagnsvhk1ndj0.png

    OMG... LOVE this!

    ETA: also, the private companies monetizing personal data will turn it over to the govt when subpoenaed, so worst of both.

    Here's the thing, though.

    They can't prove who took these tests.

    When we did tests that were required for legal purposes (such as familial documentation) the patient/DNA contributor had to be verified by two witnesses that were not related to or who had no personal relationship to the contributor. The contributor(s) had to have passports or driver's licenses, and those ID docs were copied and sent to the lab with the samples along with digital or Polaroid images of the contributor taken at the time of the swabbing procedure and it was handled forensically just like a legal/police case, with chain of custody documentation all the way through. That means, a home test done by John Doe in the privacy of his own home is not admissible for use for legal purposes.

    We did a lot of immigration and paternity testing. The Gobment doesn't let Abu Abististan send in a swab he did himself and then enter the US based on his (dubious) alleged relationship to Ebee Abististan, who is already a legal citizen. (Names are made up.) The government doesn't force John to pay Jane child support based on a DNA paternity test that Jane submitted and that they did the swabs themselves at home. It just doesn't work like that.

    An insurance provider could not subpoena DNA tests that people did in their own homes and use them as a basis for insurance exclusion. Now if the insurance company got that contributor to give permission and did the DNA test itself WITH I.D. DOCUMENTATION, then they could subpoena those test results.

    All this fear is just unfounded.

    I'm pretty sure that's what everyone felt about those little tests you take on facebook to tell you what kind of cat you are or whatever. Until they realized that facebook was using that information for things other than to tell you what kind of cat you are.

    People don't realize what information we give up in the name of convenience or fun. All those little clubs you belong to for collecting points or getting a better deal at the grocery store etc.? Those companies turn around and sell your information to anyone willing to pay for it. I've done you a great disservice if I've led you to believe it's the government you need to worry about. I only brought up the government because people freak right out if you suggest they give their DNA for a government database but somehow it's different for a private corporation...it's not and if it is, it's actually worse than the government having the information IMHO.

    I was pretty blase about protecting my identity until my sister had hers stolen by a woman residing in another city. It took her literally years to repair what this woman did to her credit rating and other services based upon her identity (think licenses, airmiles etc.--anything attached to your name that doesn't directly affect your credit rating). She had to travel across the country on more than one occasion to swear affadavits and all kinds of other (sometimes expensive) nuisances.

    Anyway, I get told regularly that I'm crazy for worrying about this stuff so I'm not surprised people here think I'm crazy too. I hope none of you have to go through what my sister did.

    Okay, I understand identity theft. But DNA submitted under a Jane Doe, or even under my own name - how is that going to be used in a bad way other than with denying insurance? I just can't think of how...and I worked with this stuff for years. It certainly isn't going to be part of identity theft. And while I feel for your sister, it could happen to any of us. I'm sorry she went through that.

    I can see it being a fearful thing if someone is on the criminal spectrum. Those people definitely don't want their bio material "out."

    It's not like my doctor doesn't have plenty of my blood and other tissue. It would be easy enough to identify anyone who has been to a doctor, but it just isn't something that's done on the regular.

    What exactly is your fear about this? I'm genuinely interested.

    Not a bad thing, but a very interesting use of one of the results from a DNA company (might have been 23andme). But a 30 year old murder was solved recently because their brother went used one of the services.

    Might have been GEDMatch and the Golden State Killer. As far as I know, Ancestry and 23 and Me do not currently have their databases open to law enforcement without a warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEDmatch

    ETA, found this:
    "Contents of communications and any data relating to the DNA of an Ancestry user will be released only pursuant to a valid search warrant from a government agency with proper jurisdiction." https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/lawenforcement
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    edited October 2018
    .nm

Categories