DNA, The Truth Will Always Come Out!

[Bluegoat]

29 minutes ago, DawnM said:

 

And YOU are kidding, right?  Take DNA, a science, with a grain of salt?  Because that is common sense?

 

 

It made sense to me.  Lots of science should be taken with a grain of salt.  

[kbutton]

4 hours ago, StartingOver said:

When it started I didn't give a flip what happened in the past, adultery wasn't my personal concern. My husband had 3 heart stents at 47 years old, through his DNA we will never know who his father is as they all died at the average age of 50 from massive heart attacks. A brother and a sister married a sister and a brother. But the value of knowing that family history,  reading the death certificates may allow my children to live past 50. No doctor can tell ahead of time with no family history that someone will drop dead in their tracks. Luckily I have some medical knowledge and pushed for further testing as the doctors said it was heart burn. It turned out to be blockages at 98 and 99%. Now my children can argue for heart caths much younger.

1

We have a strong family history of genetic issues, and not one family member was referred for genetic testing. Not one. My son is the first to have genetic testing, and it got crazy super fast--he does NOT have what the rest of the family has, and he has a spontaneous mutation for a different  condition (and actually another mutation for possibly a different one entirely, but they don't know enough about it yet to say for sure). When they took his history, it turns out he has risk factors for his symptoms from three different branches of the family, but none of those branches of the family had ever been referred for genetic testing either. Without that history, we might not have gotten in the door for testing at all, and his condition could have been missed for many years. Given that the average life expectancy for someone with his condition who is undiagnosed is age 40, we are pretty happy we could make a case to have him tested.

3 hours ago, lavender's green said:

Fourth, I can see a genetics counselor - an actual professional who can order specific high-quality tests for my situation and properly interpret them. I've done it before to see if I'm a carrier for some issues my aunts and cousins have. Easy-peasy.

 

If you are the first person in the family to have that condition, you'd be surprised how hard it can be to get a test. Or perhaps you see a family history, but it's spread around (even a lot of dominant traits have variability in expression), and a doctor thinks you are just reaching. Or maybe people with that condition "should" be dropping dead at 50, but in your family, they are dropping dead at 70 instead with the odd unexplained birth defect every couple of generations. 

2 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

These highlighted, already-known medical conditions would qualify you for those services without DNA testing.  Knowing a cousin has some genetic mutation won't cause insurance companies to pay up, but you and your parents' histories would, which you already have.

She refuted this later, but I would note that doctors are the gatekeepers, and no amount of positive family history is enough to sway a doctor to be reasonable and make a referral. My doctor expected me to MAKE UP A REASON to have a specific test (screening vs. DNA) INSTEAD of coding it under some kind of family history issue (there is a code for these things--don't remember what it is right now) even after our son's geneticist referred us for the screening.

People die all the time due to doctor's thinking "this is rare," oftentimes even when there IS a positive family history. This series of Pulitzer Prize-winning articles documents just that.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PulitzerKH04052004.htm

DNA testing is literally changing the perception of how rare or not rare some conditions are, but many doctors who have been practicing a while are not as well-versed in genetics or are even suspicious about it. 

Anyway, I don't at all blame people for taking the testing into their own hands. There are too many doctors that don't want to be bothered. 

[Scarlett]

27 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It made sense to me.  Lots of science should be taken with a grain of salt.  

We are talking about two different things.  What region anyone might come from is not an exact science yet because of all the factors all ready mentioned.  Changing borders, people moving around so much and just not enough info out there yet to properly and completely compile the data.  But as far as the DNA being absolute on who your mother/father/sister/brother is.....that part of it is accurate.  Very very accurate.  

[Scarlett]

4 hours ago, peacelovehomeschooling said:

That is between her and I and no one else.  She is not my "adopted child", she is my child.  She is also just that, a child.   When she is an adult she will make her own choices and they are hers to make.     I stand by my agreement with the poster that I thanked.

Your daughter's biology and/or her desire to know or not know  about it is not between you and her.  It really has nothing to do with you. 

When my sister found me after 28 years and told 'our' dad (he raised her) he was still trying to get her to be 'careful'.  She, at the age of 40, finally put her hand up to him in a stop motion and said, 'I am not asking for your permission.  She is my sister, I have known it since I first met her and knew about her when I was 11 and this has nothing to do with you anymore.'

[Farrar]

Well this thread sure was interesting.

I can understand why anyone who is adopted might want to know their biological ancestry and medical history and it's amazing that we now have a science that can allow for that to some extent. I can also totally understand why phrasing that as "understanding who you *really* are" as being hurtful to some adoptees and adoptive parents. Both of those things can be true.

My understanding is that the science of these tests is really, really subjective when it comes to ancestry. Also, the companies have been shown to change people's results to give them the ancestry that they want to have. I'm a strong believer in science. But this science is not what people think it is for a whole host of reasons.

Even some of the medical history stuff is apparently really sketchy. There are places now selling these tests to try to tell you if you have more athletic potential or whatever. It's bunk. Complete bunk.

Some of the regulation of this data is also really sketchy.

As I understand it, except for a handful of things, like mthfr which was mentioned a couple of times, and in determining direct relationships like whether your father or sister or whatever is really your father or sister or if your twin is identical, these tests are really just for fun at this stage. If you need to determine twinness, paternity, or test for one of that handful of genetically related conditions, then that's awesome. If you don't want to know those things, that's fine too.

I think the way they're marketing these tests is irresponsible. They are advertising that they'll tell you "who you are." But the reality is so much more complex. They can easily miss your actual heritage, especially if you go beyond a few generations. Many of the traits they purport to tell you about are vague statistical chances. Just because something is science doesn't mean that it's black and white.

 

[Scarlett]

11 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Well this thread sure was interesting.

I can understand why anyone who is adopted might want to know their biological ancestry and medical history and it's amazing that we now have a science that can allow for that to some extent. I can also totally understand why phrasing that as "understanding who you *really* are" as being hurtful to some adoptees and adoptive parents. Both of those things can be true.

My understanding is that the science of these tests is really, really subjective when it comes to ancestry. Also, the companies have been shown to change people's results to give them the ancestry that they want to have. I'm a strong believer in science. But this science is not what people think it is for a whole host of reasons.

Even some of the medical history stuff is apparently really sketchy. There are places now selling these tests to try to tell you if you have more athletic potential or whatever. It's bunk. Complete bunk.

Some of the regulation of this data is also really sketchy.

As I understand it, except for a handful of things, like mthfr which was mentioned a couple of times, and in determining direct relationships like whether your father or sister or whatever is really your father or sister or if your twin is identical, these tests are really just for fun at this stage. If you need to determine twinness, paternity, or test for one of that handful of genetically related conditions, then that's awesome. If you don't want to know those things, that's fine too.

I think the way they're marketing these tests is irresponsible. They are advertising that they'll tell you "who you are." But the reality is so much more complex. They can easily miss your actual heritage, especially if you go beyond a few generations. Many of the traits they purport to tell you about are vague statistical chances. Just because something is science doesn't mean that it's black and white.

 

I do agree with this.  When I first figured out that the ancestry portion of it is not so exact I was irritated by the marketing.

[DawnM]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It made sense to me.  Lots of science should be taken with a grain of salt.  

 

Some, but we are talking about DNA.  Are you biologically matched to Tom?  DNA says you are.....but you go ahead and take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, DawnM said:

 

Some, but we are talking about DNA.  Are you biologically matched to Tom?  DNA says you are.....but you go ahead and take that with a grain of salt.

 

The first cousin that my mom first found?  He still refuses to talk to her because he 'doesn't believe' it.  And he thinks my mom is trying to 'get something from him.'  A real head scratcher. 

[DawnM]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

The first cousin that my mom first found?  He still refuses to talk to her because he 'doesn't believe' it.  And he thinks my mom is trying to 'get something from him.'  A real head scratcher. 

 

Now I will say that sometimes it lists the match as something other than it is.  For example, half siblings are 25%-35% of a match, where apparently grandparents are about the same percentage, so they have to guess as to which it is and it is up to you and the match to figure out which it might be.  Cousins and aunt/niece relationships can be similar as well.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, DawnM said:

 

Now I will say that sometimes it lists the match as something other than it is.  For example, half siblings are 25%-35% of a match, where apparently grandparents are about the same percentage, so they have to guess as to which it is and it is up to you and the match to figure out which it might be.  Cousins and aunt/niece relationships can be similar as well.

True.  But subsequent connections prove he is indeed her cousin.  Their fathers were brothers.  

[HollyDay]

How private is the DNA information?  I've considered testing for medical reasons mainly.  But, I don't want my profile "floating around" for others to see

[StartingOver]

12 minutes ago, HollyDay said:

How private is the DNA information?  I've considered testing for medical reasons mainly.  But, I don't want my profile "floating around" for others to see

You can opt out of anyone seeing your DNA (Ancestry or 23 and me ) or medical info (from 23 and me ) Promeathease sends it straight to you.  Further more you can use a untraceable prepaid credit card and a fake name or just give initials. It can be as private as you wish.  If you opt out no one will see your results or and DNA family lines. 

[KungFuPanda]

6 hours ago, StartingOver said:

I am beginning to think folks around here are feeling scared of their own skeletons, what are you hiding?

Seriously?

The health stuff I get, but you only need your own DNA to get that information. It doesn’t matter what’s in your relatives’ DNA. 

The salivating over unearthing family secrets is just creepy.

[cintinative]

7 hours ago, DawnM said:

Those of you not adopted really may not get it.  When you are adopted there are questions.  It is natural.  It is ok.  

I am adopted.  I am VERY much attached to my adoptive family.  When I proudly tell people of "my lineage" I tell them about the family I was adopted into.  They are my family!

 However, I still want to know more about who I am.  Where did I come from?  What is my genetic make-up?  Do I have any siblings?  Are there health concerns?  Is my past the reason I have two bio kids who are very creative (it must have skipped a generation! LOL!)

I am also a mom of an adopted child.  He is VERY much ours.  He also has a desire to know where he came from.  I am ok with that.  I am ordering him the 23andMe kit while they are on sale.  I don't feel threatened in any way by doing that.  I am also curious about a few things.

 

My mom was adopted and she feels the same way. She loves her adoptive family. All of them have passed away, which is one reason when I wanted to try to find her birth family, she was okay with that.  She ended up finding out she has two full siblings. Since her adoptive brother and parents have passed, and her birth parents have passed, there has been no "mess." Just a chance to get to know the two siblings she has, to learn about what her birth mom looked like and her mannerisms, and to find out some medical information about the family that is pertinent to my mom and her children (namely, autoimmune diseases that can be passed genetically).  Honestly there have always been questions about where my mom got her dark hair and dark eyes (what was her ethnicity, etc.?) and mom knew her birth parents were married and always wondered why they gave her up. It has helped answer some questions, and I think bring a bit of closure.  ETA: I did not use Ancestry to identify the ethnicity, etc. We asked the actual birth family. Same with the medical questions. 

 

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

 

Some, but we are talking about DNA.  Are you biologically matched to Tom?  DNA says you are.....but you go ahead and take that with a grain of salt.

 

But that’s not what she was talking about taking with a grain of salt. These tests purport that they can tell you where ancestors from centuries ago lived and whether you’re a night owl or if your children have the potential to be soccer stars. This stuff is borderline at best. Is that your father and do you have mfthr is not.

[Bluegoat]

11 hours ago, DawnM said:

 

Some, but we are talking about DNA.  Are you biologically matched to Tom?  DNA says you are.....but you go ahead and take that with a grain of salt.

 

 

12 hours ago, Scarlett said:

We are talking about two different things.  What region anyone might come from is not an exact science yet because of all the factors all ready mentioned.  Changing borders, people moving around so much and just not enough info out there yet to properly and completely compile the data.  But as far as the DNA being absolute on who your mother/father/sister/brother is.....that part of it is accurate.  Very very accurate.  

 

Except it wasn't just talking about that.  (And that as far as it goes isn't what people think either, I've heard people on here talking about finding 5th and 6th degree cousins.)

It's also heritage, which is very dodgy, and medical stuff which is dodgy in many cases without an interpreter.  Some of it's already got a lot of quacks taking advantage as well.  There are a heck of a lot of things about DNA that scientists don't really understand.

[plansrme]

18 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I don't understand some of the hostility on this thread.  If you don't want to take the test, don't .  If you get contacted by some previously unknown relative and you have no interest in talking to them, don't.  

 

I'm going to guess that the hostility comes from (1) the OP's multiple references to an adoptee's "real parents" and to not knowing who you are without knowing who your bio parents (and grandparents, etc.) are, which comes across as insensitive, at best, but she's dug her heels in, so perhaps it's worse; and (2) the sense of glee that seems to come through from her having uncovered secrets her ancestors clearly thought best left as secrets.    

[maize]

22 hours ago, StartingOver said:

If you are thinking of doing DNA, PLEASE be warned that you may not get the results you want but you will get the truth.

I have been working on the genealogy of my family for over 30 years. I started testing family last year to verify and broke through some real tough brick walls. Happily I made it through 2 long term brick walls. But got many surprises along the way. A sister who was put up for adoption by her mom that my dad never knew about was the first happy finding. My husband's father isn't his father, we are still working on solving this one. My ex husband's father isn't his father. My ex mother in laws father isn't her father. I have found the birth family of my 1st cousin who was adopted into my family. I found my 1st cousin's son he gave up in the 50's. I am waiting on the tests of 2 other 1st cousins to figure out which of my uncles is their father one of which was adopted from Vietnam. I am also working on trying to find answers for others, friends of friends. It isn't easy,

I can't always find answers, but so far the truth has been so much better than the lies and being able to use DNA to get a medical history has been amazing to some of these folks with mysterious symptoms no one can explain.

 

 

Re: paternity in question--have you been able to rule out the possibility that the father was himself adopted? This is one way that expected family connections would not show up, but not because of non paternity.

[StartingOver]

31 minutes ago, maize said:

Re: paternity in question--have you been able to rule out the possibility that the father was himself adopted? This is one way that expected family connections would not show up, but not because of non paternity.

Actually he was adopted by his maternal grandparents, but his assumed full brothers are only half.

[Carol in Cal.]

14 hours ago, HollyDay said:

How private is the DNA information?  I've considered testing for medical reasons mainly.  But, I don't want my profile "floating around" for others to see

Law enforcement just nabbed a long ago rapist/murderer here in CA using his relatives' DNA information.  Details are a bit sketchy, but apparently they had some of his DNA from his decades ago crimes, and compared it with that of the entire US database from those popular DNA sites.  They narrowed down the possible criminals to a handful of people, then studied them, figured out who they thought the suspect was, took something from his garbage can to get his own DNA, tested it, and bingo they had their guy.  I'm glad they caught him, but obviously this stuff is not all that private, at least from a law enforcement standpoint.

[StartingOver]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Law enforcement just nabbed a long ago rapist/murderer here in CA using his relatives' DNA information.  Details are a bit sketchy, but apparently they had some of his DNA from his decades ago crimes, and compared it with that of the entire US database from those popular DNA sites.  They narrowed down the possible criminals to a handful of people, then studied them, figured out who they thought the suspect was, took something from his garbage can to get his own DNA, tested it, and bingo they had their guy.  I'm glad they caught him, but obviously this stuff is not all that private, at least from a law enforcement standpoint.

They are uploading to a site called Genesis Gedmatch which has no privacy at all. I think it is wonderful, my DNA is out there. But if I had concerns it would be the last company I would use. I would only use Ancestry and 23andme which allow complete opt out.

[Carol in Cal.]

17 minutes ago, StartingOver said:

They are uploading to a site called Genesis Gedmatch which has no privacy at all. I think it is wonderful, my DNA is out there. But if I had concerns it would be the last company I would use. I would only use Ancestry and 23andme which allow complete opt out.

It's not clear to me that any company can allow complete opt out of law enforcement use.

[StartingOver]

If one of my kin raped and murdered, I will help law enforcement all I can. If law enforcement really wants DNA, they will get it.  Better start burning your trash, washing your own dishes at restaurants, & etc.

[Carol in Cal.]

7 minutes ago, StartingOver said:

If one of my kin raped and murdered, I will help law enforcement all I can. If law enforcement really wants DNA, they will get it.  Better start burning your trash, washing your own dishes at restaurants, & etc.

There is still a significant civil liberties erosion issue with all of this.

Unremarked, generally, which I find interesting.

[Scarlett]

54 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

I’ve read this thread twice, now, and don’t understand the hostility the OP has been given. Did anyone get the gist of it? You may not get what you want, but it will be the truth? She’s giving her opinion and others are acting so belligerent, way too snarkyfor such a thread. So she writes $!!@, as so many of us have done( some of us even write the real expletives) and someone calls her out as cursing? Unbelievable. 

I’m going to guess that there is a history between the OP and a couple others. Something was said by her in the past and they’re treating her harshly now, I’m sure we all know the behavior.

 

I don't know about any previous issues with the OP and anyone here, but I do see this kind of thing often....where a topic just rubs people the wrong way and if they (the ones it rubs the wrong way)  happen to be the first ones to post to the thread it turns hostile very quickly.  

[rjand6more]

I have questions about my family, but not enough to go digging around with DNA.  I don't have a draw to know details that were not given to me.  However, I do understand that others would have a deep need to find out.

Putting your DNA profile out there is like handing out your SS #.  Those companies have no legal/moral responsibilities to keep those safe and private. What will keep insurance companies from refusing coverage of certain conditions(or likely charging more) because of a DNA likelihood you will inherit or develop a condition.  Life insurance already does this with smoking, obesity, other KNOWN conditions.  And once it is "out there", that's it.  You have ZERO control over how it's used.  And I think it's funny that anyone thinks you can ANONYMOUSLY  send in your DNA.  Once there are matches in the database, there is not that much to connect all the dots with birth/death records, etc. It's a computer program.

I am suspecting we will reach a day when insurance will require DNA profiles.  Then, I will do what I have to.  But, no way will I give up that info willingly today.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, rjand6more said:

I have questions about my family, but not enough to go digging around with DNA.  I don't have a draw to know details that were not given to me.  However, I do understand that others would have a deep need to find out.

Putting your DNA profile out there is like handing out your SS #.  Those companies have no legal/moral responsibilities to keep those safe and private. What will keep insurance companies from refusing coverage of certain conditions(or likely charging more) because of a DNA likelihood you will inherit or develop a condition.  Life insurance already does this with smoking, obesity, other KNOWN conditions.  And once it is "out there", that's it.  You have ZERO control over how it's used.  And I think it's funny that anyone thinks you can ANONYMOUSLY  send in your DNA.  Once there are matches in the database, there is not that much to connect all the dots with birth/death records, etc. It's a computer program.

I am suspecting we will reach a day when insurance will require DNA profiles.  Then, I will do what I have to.  But, no way will I give up that info willingly today.

Our ss #s are already 'out there'.  That credit bureau breech put millions onto the www. I have no illusion of privacy.  Not financial and not medically.  Sure, life insurance companies, which are in the business of making money on the gamble of when you will die, will use what info they can to lessen their risk.  But beyond that, which is what everyone always mentions, really what is the harm?  

HIPPA is a joke.  An annoyance but by no means even effective.  I called a clinic to ask about my son's bill and the person on the other end read off my XH's recent appts and procedures.  He had already told me all about it, but what if he had wanted that kept from me---his XW! I long ago opted for a policy of having nothing to hide.  I feel better for it.

[rjand6more]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Our ss #s are already 'out there'.  That credit bureau breech put millions onto the www. I have no illusion of privacy.  Not financial and not medically.  Sure, life insurance companies, which are in the business of making money on the gamble of when you will die, will use what info they can to lessen their risk.  But beyond that, which is what everyone always mentions, really what is the harm?  

HIPPA is a joke.  An annoyance but by no means even effective.  I called a clinic to ask about my son's bill and the person on the other end read off my XH's recent appts and procedures.  He had already told me all about it, but what if he had wanted that kept from me---his XW! I long ago opted for a policy of having nothing to hide.  I feel better for it.

Oh, I have no expectation of privacy.  I do know how it all works.  I have had CC breaches to the tune of lots of $$$.  I still use credit cards. 

I choose to keep my DNA info to myself.  That's my choice.  Those companies can keep, use, do whatever they want with your DNA profile.  I am SO SURPRISED that not many give that a second thought.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, rjand6more said:

Oh, I have no expectation of privacy.  I do know how it all works.  I have had CC breaches to the tune of lots of $$$.  I still use credit cards. 

I choose to keep my DNA info to myself.  That's my choice.  Those companies can keep, use, do whatever they want with your DNA profile.  I am SO SURPRISED that not many give that a second thought.

I don't question your right to not upload your DNA.  But I still wonder what you think they will do with it? 

Then again, I could never get bothered by posting pics of my son on line.  I figured it would be easier for a kidnapper to follow me home from Wal-Mart than track me down from some pic on line.

[rjand6more]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't question your right to not upload your DNA.  But I still wonder what you think they will do with it? 

Then again, I could never get bothered by posting pics of my son on line.  I figured it would be easier for a kidnapper to follow me home from Wal-Mart than track me down from some pic on line.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/what-you-re-giving-away-those-home-dna-tests-n824776

This is not the most outstanding source, but it lists some of the reservations I have, since you asked.

I think it's a personal thing.  I do not question other people's interest in knowing more info about their heritage.  My curiosity does not outweigh my caution at this time.  That's all I'm saying.

I don't consider myself all that paranoid about privacy, but maybe I am.LOL I did not post pictures of my oldest online! HA! His dad(my XH) is a PO in a rough area not too far from us.  He made a lot of enemies and I didn't want them to have any way to easily find our kid.  The other kids post online pictures, though.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, rjand6more said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/what-you-re-giving-away-those-home-dna-tests-n824776

This is not the most outstanding source, but it lists some of the reservations I have, since you asked.

I think it's a personal thing.  I do not question other people's interest in knowing more info about their heritage.  My curiosity does not outweigh my caution at this time.  That's all I'm saying.

I don't consider myself all that paranoid about privacy, but maybe I am.LOL I did not post pictures of my oldest online! HA! His dad(my XH) is a PO in a rough area not too far from us.  He made a lot of enemies and I didn't want them to have any way to easily find our kid.  The other kids post online pictures, though.

If I had an XH that was a PO I might be more diligent about my kid's privacy.  But again, criminals would have no problem tracking down your XH's kids if they really wanted to.

I am not picking on you, but I read that entire article and they mentioned employers using your data against you to fire you.  And they  mentioned finding out you have the gene for a rare and/or terrible disease...do you really want to know. 

That is pretty much all it was.  

[rjand6more]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

If I had an XH that was a PO I might be more diligent about my kid's privacy.  But again, criminals would have no problem tracking down your XH's kids if they really wanted to.

I am not picking on you, but I read that entire article and they mentioned employers using your data against you to fire you.  And they  mentioned finding out you have the gene for a rare and/or terrible disease...do you really want to know. 

That is pretty much all it was.  

Criminals ARE using social media to enhance their crimes.  Of course this was many years ago when social media was in its infancy.  And you're right.  If they really wanted to find us, they would have.  I guess I was doing what I could to keep him safe. That's all.

I mentioned it was not a scientific study.LOL Other suggestions were listed such as research, selling your info.  Most concerning is future uses we have not even considered.  I don't think this can be overlooked.  DNA science is moving SO quickly.  It's not like your DNA sample is destroyed.  It is cataloged.  It is stored.

Now, if none of this bothers you, by all means.  I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.  These are my musings.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, rjand6more said:

Criminals ARE using social media to enhance their crimes.  Of course this was many years ago when social media was in its infancy.  And you're right.  If they really wanted to find us, they would have.  I guess I was doing what I could to keep him safe. That's all.

I mentioned it was not a scientific study.LOL Other suggestions were listed such as research, selling your info.  Most concerning is future uses we have not even considered.  I don't think this can be overlooked.  DNA science is moving SO quickly.  It's not like your DNA sample is destroyed.  It is cataloged.  It is stored.

Now, if none of this bothers you, by all means.  I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.  These are my musings.  

I understand.  I am not trying to convince you either.  Just musing back.  ?

[Murphy101]

For me, I’m tired of everyone being turned into products for consumption without compensation.  Even with compensation it’s icky to me.

Henrietta Lacks for an old medical example. The voluntary DNA, Facebook, credit, and more for other people’s profit is getting rather crazy to me. I think there needs to be extremely harsh punishment to companies for using people’s bodies (such as DNA information) or personal information without compensation and not having opt out be the default. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

I’ve read this thread twice, now, and don’t understand the hostility the OP has been given. Did anyone get the gist of it? You may not get what you want, but it will be the truth? She’s giving her opinion and others are acting so belligerent, way too snarkyfor such a thread. So she writes $!!@, as so many of us have done( some of us even write the real expletives) and someone calls her out as cursing? Unbelievable. 

I’m going to guess that there is a history between the OP and a couple others. Something was said by her in the past and they’re treating her harshly now, I’m sure we all know the behavior.

 

 

It's the tone of the responses.  Yeah, if someone swears at you for asking a totally reasonable question about an item of information you introduced, people get ticked off.  The whole discussion seems to be approached that way.

[Lady Florida.]

23 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Nope, it’s that the results of reading anything medical into genes that isn’t done by a geneticist is really dodgy.  And having a gene doesn’t equal having a condition for many of these. 

 

It’s so easy for people to go way overboard on this with medical, and convince themselves they have conditions or risks they don’t.  

^^^This^^^ So much of the medical information you get from a home test is sketchy at best. Often the results you get depend on the size of their database as well as the algorithms they use. 

  http://fortune.com/2018/04/02/dna-test-kits-accurate-study/

From the article:

The study, led by Ambry Genetics—a more traditional clinical diagnostics company—suggests that up to 40% of examined “variants in a variety of genes reported in DTC raw data were false positives.” A rough translation? Some of these at-home tests may suggest users are at risk for a condition they’re not actually at risk for.

Ambry’s scientists’ research essentially suggests that clinical diagnostic companies offer a more clear picture of disease risk because they use a more comprehensive kind of genomic sequencing technology. And they emphasize that the possibility of false positives makes it critical for at-home kit customers to consult with a medical professional or genetic counselor before making any decisions about their health habits. 

 

That said, BIL found a daughter he never knew he had. He was 19, ran into a girl he knew from school when they were both in another town, and had a few nights of a "thing" with her. Neither wanted more. Fast forward to 4 years ago. He and his (known) daughter were doing Ancestry for fun and sent in their DNA tests. Around the same time the unknown daughter and her daughter were doing the same thing, Known daughter discovered this unknown relative but didn't realize they were sisters. With some back and forth emails they found out more info. She had been put up for adoption and wasn't really searching for her bio family, so it all just kind of happened. They met and formed a wonderful relationship. His wife was a bit put out at first but it was long before they met and once she got over the shock she too welcomed his daughter into their family. When you see the two women together it's obvious they're both his daughters. Unfortunately for her, her bio mom does not want to meet or have any contact. We finally met her last week and it was such an easy meeting. She fit right in even though she didn't grow up around dh's family. Sadly it was at FIL's funeral, but at least she had a chance to meet him a few times over the past 4 years.

3 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Law enforcement just nabbed a long ago rapist/murderer here in CA using his relatives' DNA information.  Details are a bit sketchy, but apparently they had some of his DNA from his decades ago crimes, and compared it with that of the entire US database from those popular DNA sites.  They narrowed down the possible criminals to a handful of people, then studied them, figured out who they thought the suspect was, took something from his garbage can to get his own DNA, tested it, and bingo they had their guy.  I'm glad they caught him, but obviously this stuff is not all that private, at least from a law enforcement standpoint.

I listened to the audio book about that case (I'll Be Gone in the Dark). It was fascinating and I'm also glad they caught him but it does bring up a lot of questions about privacy. Of course we'd all want to help catch a killer even if that killer was one of our family, but there are constitutional implications that shouldn't be ignored. I think it's going to be a big legal issue in the future as these tests become more common. 

[Farrar]

My experience is that in families where there are skeletons, some people seem to think that therefore everyone's family has skeletons. I think that assumption is a little uncomfortable. Some families are just boring for several generations. It doesn't mean their members are naive, which seemed to be the tone earlier in the thread.

I'd like to get my boys tested to be sure of their twin status. But otherwise, I'm 100% sure that DNA is not going to reveal anything shocking about anyone in my immediate family.

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

I listened to the audio book about that case (I'll Be Gone in the Dark). It was fascinating and I'm also glad they caught him but it does bring up a lot of questions about privacy. Of course we'd all want to help catch a killer even if that killer was one of our family, but there are constitutional implications that shouldn't be ignored. I think it's going to be a big legal issue in the future as these tests become more common. 

 

With this kind of thing, I imagine most people want to catch horrible murderers.  But of course it can be used for any kind of finding people through DNA matches.  What other kinds of things might an authoritarian state want to control?  Or what about cases like the recent Facebook scandal which was essentially about making a commodity of personal data?  Could NA be used in similar ways?  (What if a company like FB bought one of these DNA company databases?)

Any giant database like this that can be searched by algorithm is a lever for power, and the lever is with the one who compiles and controls the information.

[Jean in Newcastle]

12 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

^^^This^^^ So much of the medical information you get from a home test is sketchy at best. Often the results you get depend on the size of their database as well as the algorithms they use. 

  http://fortune.com/2018/04/02/dna-test-kits-accurate-study/

From the article:

The study, led by Ambry Genetics—a more traditional clinical diagnostics company—suggests that up to 40% of examined “variants in a variety of genes reported in DTC raw data were false positives.” A rough translation? Some of these at-home tests may suggest users are at risk for a condition they’re not actually at risk for.

Ambry’s scientists’ research essentially suggests that clinical diagnostic companies offer a more clear picture of disease risk because they use a more comprehensive kind of genomic sequencing technology. And they emphasize that the possibility of false positives makes it critical for at-home kit customers to consult with a medical professional or genetic counselor before making any decisions about their health habits. 

 

Yes.  This is why the thread title "DNA - the truth will always come out" is a bit laughable.  (Not to mention offensive when matched with the information in the post about her family skeletons being unmasked no matter how it might actually affect living people.) 

[StartingOver]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Yes.  This is why the thread title "DNA - the truth will always come out" is a bit laughable.  (Not to mention offensive when matched with the information in the post about her family skeletons being unmasked no matter how it might actually affect living people.) 

So you are saying that adult children do not have a right to find their birth families?  Or any adult child to find out their parentage. This is laughable. 

[StartingOver]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

Actually, I’m in favor of sealed adoption records, if that is what the parent wants, and hunting someone down via genetics to circumvent that doesn’t make me totally comfortable either.

 

I can see both sides of that.  Again, why are you so combative about this?  Not everyone is going to agree with you, that’s okay.

I am not combative, I just don't agree that an adult child doesn't have rights to know why, and who gave them up.

[Jean in Newcastle]

36 minutes ago, StartingOver said:

So you are saying that adult children do not have a right to find their birth families?  Or any adult child to find out their parentage. This is laughable. 

Since I did not mention adoption at all, that is a very strange conclusion to come to. 

[liber]

I have often thought about doing the DNA testing but I won't.  it would open up a whole can of worms in my Dad's family.  My dad was nicknamed 7 up because of the number of girls he had pregnant at one time.  He married one of the girls he had pregnant.  My mom raised me on her own.  My maternal grandmother told me when I was a little girl about his nickname and that I had half siblings out there somewhere.  One girl had twins that she gave up for adoption.  Other women were in a relationship with another man and probably passed the child off as theirs and I probably was going to school with them and didn't even know it.  It was a small town.  All these things I knew for years.  However I don't think that my half siblings with the woman my dad married knew.  I never brought it up and neither did they.  A few years back, when my dad was feeling the affects of some potent painkillers for his back injury, wanted to talk to me privately.  He told me about the twins that were put up for adoption.  I just pretended I didn't know.  I still think my half siblings don't know.  My reasons for thinking they don't are 1) they didn't know about me until they moved back to the  same town and we would be in school together and 2) my "half brother" didn't find out our dad wasn't his dad at all until he was in his late 20's.   I have no plans to ask them and I am afraid that if I did the DNA thing I would probably discover more siblings, which wouldn't bother me but if my half siblings don't know it would be a big shock as they think the sun rises and sets on their dad.  

[Scarlett]

13 minutes ago, liber said:

I have often thought about doing the DNA testing but I won't.  it would open up a whole can of worms in my Dad's family.  My dad was nicknamed 7 up because of the number of girls he had pregnant at one time.  He married one of the girls he had pregnant.  My mom raised me on her own.  My maternal grandmother told me when I was a little girl about his nickname and that I had half siblings out there somewhere.  One girl had twins that she gave up for adoption.  Other women were in a relationship with another man and probably passed the child off as theirs and I probably was going to school with them and didn't even know it.  It was a small town.  All these things I knew for years.  However I don't think that my half siblings with the woman my dad married knew.  I never brought it up and neither did they.  A few years back, when my dad was feeling the affects of some potent painkillers for his back injury, wanted to talk to me privately.  He told me about the twins that were put up for adoption.  I just pretended I didn't know.  I still think my half siblings don't know.  My reasons for thinking they don't are 1) they didn't know about me until they moved back to the  same town and we would be in school together and 2) my "half brother" didn't find out our dad wasn't his dad at all until he was in his late 20's.   I have no plans to ask them and I am afraid that if I did the DNA thing I would probably discover more siblings, which wouldn't bother me but if my half siblings don't know it would be a big shock as they think the sun rises and sets on their dad.  

It is kind of you to not want to upset your half siblings.  However, this is the very thing that just drives me batty about these life long deceptions.  Here you are denying your desire to find your other siblings and you are also denying your known half siblings the right to know the truth about the unknown half siblings.  You can't know how they will react really.  My sister thinks our dad hung the moon too but she longed for me from the moment she knew I existed.  Those two feelings can co-exist.  

Basically, I am on the side of truth.  Let the truth sort everything out.  

[SporkUK]

I don't think we can claim it's a right because that means it is someone's responsibility to give them that information. It's laughable to think that's either possible or quite questionable ethically. It's like the right to pursue happiness, that doesn't mean you get it or whatever you think will make you happy. 

I've been tempted by these for years but haven't done so. I come from a background which does include whispers that I might have half-siblings, or that my father isn't my biological father, or that my father's father was not biologically his...and so on alongside a practically open secret of white passing and parts of the family tree hidden to do so better. Such whispers have been around since gossip began, I suppose. I have gone through time periods where I've wanted a definitive answer, of being really annoyed at how much doubt to my background has been planted in my mind, but I guess never enough to put my money down for something that practically won't change anything for me. Yeah, it was kinda helpful when I went through early menopause in my twenties to know my maternal grandmother and great-grandmother and many others had gone through the same, but I got that same feeling from going to a support group for women who had similar diagnoses. I've come to terms that my knowledge will always be limited and, while it might be interesting...at this point whatever the truth would sort out, now that I'm thousands of miles away and that life so many years behind me, I don't see spending that kind of money for it when I'm already spending money to give my biometrics in order to move forward as an immigrant. 

 

It is hard to get screening. My spouse has sadly had his 3rd relative in 5 years diagnosed with similar cancers and he and his sister have been recommended for testing which she's had but my spouse is struggling to get and we're currently having a flurry of letters back and forth. We've all openly talked about how there could be genetic or environmental factors that put my spouse and our kids at risk but also the truth that all were on unrelated medications and other drugs that increases the risks as well. I know once my kids are old enough, I'm going to get them Cardiac Risk in the Young screening. 

 

[StartingOver]

56 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Since I did not mention adoption at all, that is a very strange conclusion to come to. 

OK, so if we aren't talking adoption. Does that mean any adult doesn't have the right to know where they come from. My goodness, the sky is blue right?

[Farrar]

I don’t even have a strong opinion about whether or not adult adoptees have a right to their birth records. I think everyone who wants to do DNA testing should go do it.

 I just think that the idea that home DNA testing will somehow solve mysteries, get to some objective truth, and tell you who you “really” are is strongly misleading as a general statement. It can tell you a few things pretty objectively but much of the rest of what it claims to tell you is based on flawed and tenuous science at this point.

Plus, many people don’t feel that science, no matter how accurate, can define you or your family, so the blanket nature of phrasing it that way chafes.

[Murphy101]

19 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

It is kind of you to not want to upset your half siblings.  However, this is the very thing that just drives me batty about these life long deceptions.  Here you are denying your desire to find your other siblings and you are also denying your known half siblings the right to know the truth about the unknown half siblings.  You can't know how they will react really.  My sister thinks our dad hung the moon too but she longed for me from the moment she knew I existed.  Those two feelings can co-exist.  

Basically, I am on the side of truth.  Let the truth sort everything out.  

 

But the facts in these exampled don’t really tell you truth. 

The person we called dad is dad regardless of dna. 

And knowing we have common dna doesn’t make someone family. We have common dna with animals. 

There’s no magic in dna results. Families that grew up together don’t always get along now matter their dna. 

While it’s great your sister was thrilled to have a new sister in her life and that you hit it off - it’s just as likely it could have gone the other way. Because dna isn’t what determines the truth of that. 

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, StartingOver said:

OK, so if we aren't talking adoption. Does that mean any adult doesn't have the right to know where they come from. My goodness, the sky is blue right?

 

No. That it’s somehow more special at this or that longitude and latitude makes no sense to me. We know where we come from. Born this day. Given to these people to raise (bio or otherwise). Went to that school. And so forth. 

Knowing ancestral statistics doesn’t tell us where WE came from. It tells us where other people we are related via dna were from.

I don’t even know my maternal grandmother’s name. And knowing it won’t change a single thing about what I know about me or where I come from. I have no right to know anything about other people that they don’t happily decide to share with me.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

But the facts in these exampled don’t really tell you truth. 

The person we called dad is dad regardless of dna. 

And knowing we have common dna doesn’t make someone family. We have common dna with animals. 

There’s no magic in dna results. Families that grew up together don’t always get along now matter their dna. 

While it’s great your sister was thrilled to have a new sister in her life and that you hit it off - it’s just as likely it could have gone the other way. Because dna isn’t what determines the truth of that. 

I don't know about magic, but I certainly think there is value in DNA but more importantly there is value in Truth.  Sure we might not like our bio fathers/mothers/sisters/brothers....but if we have truth we get to decide that.