
Navigenics, 23andMe slammed in government report - jamesbritt
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_15580695
======
AngryParsley
_In one case, Navigenics called a donor's risk of prostate cancer above
average, while 23andMe and deCODE considered his risk average and Pathway
judged it to be below average, the report said._

 _In another instance, a donor had a family history of heart disease, the
report said, "yet all four companies predicted that she was at average risk
for having a heart attack."_

Both of these examples are incredibly weak evidence. You need statistics to
find the accuracy of these products, not anecdotes. Anyway, your genes are a
more accurate gauge of disease risk than family history. When a doctor asks
about family history, they would prefer to take a look at your genome. It's
easy to have a family history of heart attack while having an average risk
yourself. If your ancestors had typical genes, but lived a different lifestyle
that caused them to be more prone to heart attack, they'd have heart attacks.
Hell, they could just be unlucky.

~~~
carbocation
> Anyway, your genes are a more accurate gauge of disease risk than family
> history. When a doctor asks about family history, they would prefer to take
> a look at your genome.

This is not currently true, though in the far future it will be. Modern
genetics has been slammed (unfairly, I think) for the fact that your genetics
do not increase discrimination when compared to models including family
history. In other words, for virtually every human disease, family history is
a better predictor of risk than is your genetic profile. I stand to benefit
personally and professionally when genetic risk overtakes family history, but
it simply hasn't yet.

------
chaostheory
I don't know about Navigenics but 23andMe clearly states in multiple places on
their website, that their service isn't a medical diagnosis and it may be
prone to error.

As acangiano already posted, they obviously don't hold 'holistic' products to
the same standard. I wonder what the government wants from them.

------
acangiano
> were blasted by investigators from the U.S. Government Accountability Office
> for drawing unsupportable conclusions

> from the gene samples they analyzed and making health predictions that
> didn't always jibe with their customers' actual medical conditions.

I wish they held doctors, and others practicing pseduo-medicine, to the same
standards.

~~~
zavulon
How are the doctors practicing pseudo-medicine?

~~~
dublinclontarf
Over here in China, as you might expect, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is
quite popular. But after spending a year teaching in a TCM provincial level
university, and talking to a number of the lecturers is it even real? A good
few of the lecturers have been disciplined for complaining that TCM is for
want of a better term "a load of crap".

If the people teaching & practicing it think it's snake oil what does that say
about it.

And why is it called Traditional Chinese Medicine, why not just call it
medicine if it works?

------
gcheong
Response from 23andme:

[http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/07/23/gao-studies-
science-n...](http://spittoon.23andme.com/2010/07/23/gao-studies-science-non-
scientifically/#more-6936)

~~~
moultano
Wow. That was remarkably polite given how unprofessional the original report
was.

~~~
Elite
They don't have much of a choice but to defer. Political officials are
notoriously vindictive. If 23andMe released a scathing response, it would be
taken personally by some power hungry politico would make it his personal
agenda to destroy the company.

The only industry I can think of that basically told government "Go fuck
yourselves" was wall street. Even Big Oil panders.

------
hotpockets
Great, lets ban all information not approved by the state.

