DNA kit to test best diet and exercise
Replies
-
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..4 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »After working in the industry, I think DNA testing across wide swaths of people will end up being a very good thing in time, but even the Ancestry ones won't be of much help to most people because what they *think* they will find out is really not what the results will disclose. Ancestry is either extremely micro (as in, immediate family) or extremely macro (as in, 100,000 years ago your ancestors lived here - pointing to an entire continent.) Not really what people think they will get at all.
In time these shared databases with computer number-crunching will be really helpful for disease prevention and for diagnostic purposes.
We're not there yet. Not enough population data has been collected.
I did a test, just a general ID test because why not? I don't think my insurance company is going to use it against me. My tin foil hat is on someone else's head. If I get a disease, they still have to pay. It is only a problem if/when there are health insurance exclusion clauses (pre-existing conditions exclusions) - which I don't think are legal right now. If I have a marker I may or may not get that illness before I fall off a cliff hiking.
You touch on my thoughts. I have little issue with a DNA testing company selling my info anonymously for research (if they ask my permission first). I have HUGE issues with all the crap insurance companies pass around to deny medical coverage or rate your policies.
Well, and it's not like you have to show ID to have a test done. If you are the Conspiracy Theory type, just use a fake name.
We did tests on Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Andrea Doria, John and Jane Doe, Dracula. They only have what you give them.
And no, Mickey Mouse and Mighty Mouse are not biologically related.
So you're saying my fear that I'm so awesome they will use my DNA to clone me, or I am so important that they will use my DNA to reverse engineer a personalized poison, are unfounded? I'm not convinced.
Honestly, I can't help shake the sour feeling I have about sending a sample of what <biologically at least> makes me me to a company when I don't 100% understand all of this stuff anyway. I can totally own that I have no sturdy basis for that though, just feelz and stuff.
To the OP, it's a waste of money. If you want to do it for curiosity's sake and have the $$$ to burn, go for it. But there is currently no proof that anyone can use your DNA to accurately determine what you should eat or what workout to do. Your own experience through trial and error and tracking your data would be way more useful.
ha.
Better not ever get a pap smear. Or a blood test. You know that stuff has DNA in it, right?
Or leave a cup at a restaurant...
Or mail a letter that you've licked to the IRS.
Stop it
Now I have to huddle in the corner and think about my happy place.18 -
A happier post for Kimny
17 -
cmriverside 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 DNA
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.
13 -
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.2
-
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.3 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.
People thought Facebook was completely innocuous until it was revealed that Facebook records every single thing you have ever said or done on Facebook. Now why Facebook would want to record every single thing I have said and done on Facebook is a mystery to me however Facebook had something in mind: sell it to Cambridge Analytica and other such companies so those guys can do god knows what with it. Maybe topple American democracy if they catalyzed the worst case scenario.
Private corporations take your information and do what they please with it, including sell it to anyone willing pay for it or, in the case of Google, turn it over to the government after being asked nicely. You don't know what they do with it. You can't imagine what they would do with it. That doesn't mean things aren't being done with it.
6 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.4 -
My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.5
-
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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/lawenforcement1 -
cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Even if as an individual I have nothing to hide, governmental and non-governmental actors are either using or have the desire to use the aggregate of "harmless" information from large groups to make decisions and further their interests. It's not like this keeps me up at night, but it's something to consider.8 -
.nm2
-
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😬
You're in luck: I have a crystal ball that specializes in questions like this!
It says that if you're doing no to minimal cardio now, and general CV fitness is your goal, you should do LISS regularly at a time investment that fits well into your daily life (starting with frequent rest days, but increasing both frequency and intensity (while staying LISS) as you start to gain fitness). It recommends a LISS intensity that is what you can sustain for your allotted time period (after a short warm-up), while feeling energized, not exhausted for the rest of the day (after a few minutes recovery from immediate effects).
Then, when you have a decent CV base fitness (maybe as soon as 2-3 months if you're consistent, even for someone new to cardio), it says you should begin doing regular intervals (like walk/run or equivalent) perhaps every other workout, and pay attention to rest needs via perceived fatigue, always taking one rest day per week (which can be active rest, especially as you get fitter).
When that is going well, if you want to improve your VO2max, it thinks that you should then replace one of the interval workouts each week, possibly at most two, with true CV HIIT (not one of those trendy circuit thingies they call HIIT, that aren't CV HIIT). If you don't need to enhance your VO2max, it says the HIIT isn't very important.
Oh, and: It says if you enjoy different types of cardio, it would be best for your body type if you mix up the modes sometimes across the week.
It's a smart crystal ball: You should listen to it. Also, it's generous: It just saved you hundreds of dollars.
9 -
cmriverside wrote: »My point is - if ya got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.
Even if this were true, which I very much disagree that it is, it rankles me that someone is making money off of my personal information. I don't like being passed around like the town pump. I don't like the idea that I possibly contributed to the downfall of American democracy. I don't like receiving emails, phone calls and junk mail for crap I've never expressed even the remotest interest in because some corporation bought my information from some other corporation.
Add to this that they have the gall to pretend they're doing me a favour when they collect and sell my information by knocking $4 off of my bag of dog food or whatever. I don't care to be pressured to join the clubs just to get a good deal; as if they haven't made back from selling my information far more than any deal I'm getting anyway. If it were not a net gain for the corporation, they wouldn't be doing it.11 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »cmriverside 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 DNA
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.
As someone from an IT background (including a big chunk of DRM-type work), I find it touching how good people think the "big data" people are at matching up data from disparate databases to profile you, just as if we were on one of those CSI TV shows where they push a button and the suspect's 20-year-old employment records get matched up with residence history, crime patterns in each city, and a list of how their Starbucks preferences have changed over the years. (LOLZ!)
If you haven't, seek out and look at one of the advertising infrastructure sites where you can look at your own profile data. IME, it's pretty hilarious. If I were paranoid about this kind of stuff, I'd be worried more about the consequences of how weirdly wrong they are, not how scary-effective they are. I'm still seeing insurance ads from Mexico occasionally because I watched a few subtitled Spanish-language videos, and 3 years post weight loss, all I see is plus-size clothing ads. I ain't skeered.
Scary insightful? Nah. Someday, they'll get there. IMO, they aren't there yet.
Individual identify theft is a whole different thing, with a whole different set of mechanisms. So is black hat hacking, so is doxing, etc. My biggest point of amusement is people who are all paranoid about this kind of *baby-feline*, then use the same trivial password on every site they sign up for, even ones we should care about.
There's enough to be cautious about without inflating particular risks.12 -
Just wanted to interject that I have yet to see anyone here debunk my specific fears of clandestine cloning and reverse engineered poison. I knew it!
I don't know. My DNA that I accidentally leave out in the world is randomly shuffled together with everyone else's. My other "contributions" are in my doctor's hands and hopefully there is some kind of actual security in that. The DNA I purposefully give away in platelet donations is for a higher purpose. Sending my DNA in a convenient package to a private company for curiosity's sake just pushes the queasy button for me. I tend to be pretty level headed and not a conspiracy-theory follower, so I guess this is just my little weird tick. Hopefully it will make me a not so great candidate to be cloned.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions