Scientist analyzing DNA result for check genetics and forensics science.Getty

The New York Times decided to publish an editorial this weekend warning people to “be careful about 23andMe’s Health Test.” What are they worried about?

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

Although the NY Times article is accurate, the warning suggests that 23andMe misleading its customers somehow. Is it? I decided to take a look.

I’m a customer of 23andMe, and I’m also a researcher in genetics and genomics, so I know quite a bit about how their technology works and about what it can reveal. I’ve looked at 23andMe’s latest genetic health reports, and they are remarkably clear and accurate.

Let me illustrate by revealing part of my own genetic test results. First I looked at my results for BRCA1 and BRCA2, the two genes that the NY Times article discusses.

I don’t have any of the harmful mutations in the BRCA genes, which 23andMe reports like this:

Steven, you do not have the three genetic variants we tested.

However, more than 1,000 variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are known to increase cancer risk, so you could still have a variant not included in this test. In addition, most cases of male breast cancer and prostate cancer are not caused by inherited variants, so men without a variant are still at risk of developing these cancers.”

Notice that they immediately provide the caveat that more than 1,000 other variants in these genes have been linked to cancer risk, and they make it abundantly clear that they didn’t test any of those. Here’s what the NY Times article said:

“The 23andMe test can miss other possible mutations…. there are more than 1,000 other BRCA mutations that contribute to your breast cancer risk. The 23andMe test doesn’t look for any of them.”

A reader of the Times might think, upon reading this, that 23andMe somehow hides this fact. But the Times editors do little more than paraphrase 23andMe’s own report.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

The Times editors also caution that

“Just because you test negative for the few mutations that 23andMe screens for doesn’t mean that you won’t get breast cancer.”

Duh. 23andMe explains this as well, and much more, such as:

“This test does not take into account other risk factors for breast, ovarian, prostate, and other cancers, such as personal and family health history.” [from 23andMe]

The 23andMe report also provides a wealth of information about the BRCA genes, including links to the scientific papers describing the genes and their link to cancer. I was very impressed by how thorough they are.

The Times editors focused on the BRCA genes, but 23andMe also tests a handful of others (9, in my case). I looked at the APOE gene report, which has a mutation that has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease. The bad variant is called ε4, and fortunately I don’t have it.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

Once again, the 23andMe site was very clear about what this means, providing a detailed table showing the risks for people with and without the mutation. In my case, they tell me that:

“Studies estimate that, on average, a man of European descent has a 3% chance of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease by age 75 and an 11% chance by age 85.”

Looking at the detailed table, one learns that if you have one copy of APOE ε4 variants, your risk of developing Alzheimer’s by age 75 is 4-7%, and if you have 2 APOE ε4 variants–the worst case–then your risk jumps to 28%. The website provide links to 10 scientific papers with far more detail, for those who want to know the basis of these numbers. This is far more than most people will want to know, and I couldn’t find any flaws in 23andMe’s description of the science.

The Times editorial concludes with this:

“23andMe has said that its health tests can raise awareness about various medical conditions and empower consumers to take charge of their health information. But doctors and geneticists say that the tests are still more parlor trick than medicine.”

That last statement is the most egregious misrepresentation by the Times editors. Who are these geneticists who call DNA testing a “parlor trick”? The genetic tests run by 23andMe, which use technology that is run daily at thousands of labs around the world, are nothing of the sort. They are a highly accurate assay that has been repeated millions of times and validated by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. Usually the NY Times is one of the most thorough and accurate sources in the media, but they really dropped the ball this time.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

The fact is, genetics is not fate. Identical twins, who share identical DNA, rarely die of the same causes. Thus even if you knew your genetic risks perfectly, for every mutation in your DNA, you might not find anything to change in your behavior. At most, you might learn that you should get mammograms or colonoscopies slightly more often. It’s legitimate to argue that you won’t learn anything useful from the 23andMe tests, but you will learn something about genetics.

As far as changing your behavior to reduce health risks, you don’t need a sophisticated genetic test for that. Just eat more leafy greens.

[Note: although I’m a customer of 23andMe, I have no financial relationship with the company and I’m neither an advisor to nor an investor in them.]

” readability=”125.60484171322″>
< div _ ngcontent-c14 ="" innerhtml ="

(******** )(********* )

Researcher studying DNA outcome for check genes and forensics science. Getty

The New York City Times chose to release an editorial this weekend cautioning individuals to “ beware about 23 andMe’s Health Test” What are they stressed over?

POST CONTINUES AFTER AD(****************

)

Although the(***************** ) NY Times post is precise, the caution recommends that23 andMe misinforming its consumers in some way. Is it? I chose to have a look.

I’m a client of 23 andMe, and I’m likewise a scientist in genes and genomics, so I understand a fair bit about how their innovation works and about what it can expose. I have actually taken a look at 23 andMe’s newest hereditary health reports, and they are incredibly clear and precise.

Let me show by exposing part of my own hereditary test outcomes. Initially I took a look at my outcomes for BRCA1 and BRCA2, the 2 genes that the NY Times post talks about.

I do not have any of the hazardous anomalies in the BRCA genes, which 23 andMe reports like this:

(*********************** )Steven, you do not have the 3 hereditary versions we checked.

Nevertheless, more than 1,000 versions in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are understood to increase cancer danger, so you might still have an alternative not consisted of in this test. In addition, a lot of cases of male breast cancer and prostate cancer are not triggered by acquired versions, so guys without a version are still at danger of establishing these cancers.”

Notification that they instantly supply the caution that more than 1,000 other versions in these genes have actually been connected to cancer danger, and they make it generously clear that they didn’t check any of those. Here’s what the NY Times post stated:

” The(**************************************************** )andMe test can miss out on other possible anomalies … there are more than 1,000 other BRCA anomalies that add to your breast cancer danger. The 23 andMe test does not search for any of them.”(************* )

A reader of the(**************** )(***************** ) Times(**************** ) may believe, upon reading this, that 23 andMe in some way conceals this reality. However the Times editors do bit more than paraphrase 23 andMe’s own report.


POST CONTINUES AFTER AD

The Times editors likewise warn that


Even if you check unfavorable for the couple of anomalies that23 andMe screens for does not indicate that you will not get breast cancer.”

Duh
.23 andMe discusses this too, and far more, such as:

” This test does not consider other danger elements for breast, ovarian, prostate, and other cancers, such as individual and household health history.” [from 23andMe]

The 23 andMe report likewise supplies a wealth of info about the BRCA genes, consisting of links to the clinical documents explaining the genes and their link to cancer. I was really amazed by how comprehensive they are.

The Times editors concentrated on the BRCA genes, however 23 andMe likewise checks a handful of others (9, in my case). I took a look at the APOE gene report, which has an anomaly that has actually been connected to Alzheimer’s illness. The bad version is called ε4, and luckily I do not have it.

POST CONTINUES AFTER AD(****************

)

When once again, the(**************************************************** )andMe website was really clear about what this implies, supplying an in-depth table revealing the threats for individuals with and without the anomaly. In my case, they inform me that:

” Research studies approximate that, typically, a male of European descent has a 3% opportunity of establishing late-onset Alzheimer’s illness by age 75 and an 11% opportunity by age 85.”

Taking a look at the in-depth table, one finds out that if you have one copy of APOE ε4 versions, your danger of establishing Alzheimer’s by age 75 is 4-7%, and if you have 2 APOE ε4 versions– the worst case– then your danger leaps to 28%. The site supply links to 10 clinical documents with even more information, for those who would like to know the basis of these numbers. This is even more than many people will would like to know, and I could not discover any defects in 23 andMe’s description of the science.

The Times editorial concludes with this:

“23 andMe has actually stated that its health tests can raise awareness about different medical conditions and empower customers to organize their health info. However medical professionals and geneticists state that the tests are still more parlor technique than medication.”

That last declaration is the most outright misstatement by the Times editors. Who are these geneticists who call DNA screening a “parlor technique”? The hereditary trial run by 23 andMe, which utilize innovation that is run daily at countless laboratories worldwide, are absolutely nothing of the sort. They are an extremely precise assay that has actually been duplicated countless times and verified by numerous peer-reviewed research studies. Typically the NY Times is among the most comprehensive and precise sources in the media, however they truly faltered this time.

POST CONTINUES AFTER AD

The reality is, genes is not fate. Twins, who share similar DNA, hardly ever pass away of the very same causes. Hence even if you understood your hereditary threats completely, for every single anomaly in your DNA, you may not discover anything to alter in your habits. At a lot of, you may find out that you must get mammograms or colonoscopies a little more frequently. It’s genuine to argue that you will not find out anything helpful from the 23 andMe tests, however you will find out something about genes.

As far as altering your habits to decrease health threats, you do not require an advanced hereditary test for that. Simply consume more leafy greens.

[Note: although I’m a customer of 23andMe, I have no financial relationship with the company and I’m neither an advisor to nor an investor in them.]

” readability =”125
60484171322″ >

.

Researcher studying DNA outcome for check genes and forensics science. Getty

.

.

The New York City Times chose to release an editorial this weekend cautioning individuals to” beware about 23 andMe’s Health Test .” What are they stressed over?

. POST CONTINUES AFTER AD

.

Although the NY Times post is precise, the caution recommends that 23 andMe misinforming its consumers in some way. Is it? I chose to have a look.

I’m a client of 23 andMe, and I’m likewise a scientist in genes and genomics, so I understand a fair bit about how their innovation works and about what it can expose. I have actually taken a look at 23 andMe’s newest hereditary health reports, and they are incredibly clear and precise.

Let me show by exposing part of my own hereditary test outcomes. Initially I took a look at my outcomes for BRCA1 and BRCA2, the 2 genes that the NY Times post talks about.

I do not have any of the hazardous anomalies in the BRCA genes, which 23 andMe reports like this:

.

Steven, you do not have the 3 hereditary versions we checked.

Nevertheless, more than 1, 000 versions in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are understood to increase cancer danger, so you might still have an alternative not consisted of in this test. In addition, a lot of cases of male breast cancer and prostate cancer are not triggered by acquired versions, so guys without a version are still at danger of establishing these cancers.”

.

Notification that they instantly supply the caution that more than 1, 000 other versions in these genes have actually been connected to cancer danger, and they make it generously clear that they didn’t check any of those. Here’s what the NY Times post stated:

.

“The 23 andMe test can miss out on other possible anomalies … there are more than 1, 000 other BRCA anomalies that add to your breast cancer danger. The 23 andMe test does not search for any of them.”

.

A reader of the Times may believe, upon reading this, that 23 andMe in some way conceals this reality. However the Times editors do bit more than paraphrase 23 andMe’s own report.

. POST CONTINUES AFTER AD

.

The Times editors likewise warn that

.

“Even if you check unfavorable for the couple of anomalies that 23 andMe screens for does not indicate that you will not get breast cancer.”

.

Duh. 23 andMe discusses this too, and far more, such as:

.

“This test does not consider other danger elements for breast, ovarian, prostate, and other cancers, such as individual and household health history.” [from 23andMe]

.

The 23 andMe report likewise supplies a wealth of info about the BRCA genes, consisting of links to the clinical documents explaining the genes and their link to cancer. I was really amazed by how comprehensive they are.

The Times editors concentrated on the BRCA genes, however 23 andMe likewise checks a handful of others (9, in my case). I took a look at the APOE gene report, which has an anomaly that has actually been connected to Alzheimer’s illness. The bad version is called ε4, and luckily I do not have it.

. POST CONTINUES AFTER AD

.

When once again, the 23 andMe website was really clear about what this implies, supplying an in-depth table revealing the threats for individuals with and without the anomaly. In my case, they inform me that:

.

“Research studies approximate that, typically, a male of European descent has a 3 % opportunity of establishing late-onset Alzheimer’s illness by age 75 and an 11 % opportunity by age 85.”

.

Taking a look at the in-depth table, one finds out that if you have one copy of APOE ε4 versions, your danger of establishing Alzheimer’s by age 75 is 4-7 %, and if you have 2 APOE ε4 versions– the worst case– then your danger leaps to 28 %. The site supply links to 10 clinical documents with even more information, for those who would like to know the basis of these numbers. This is even more than many people will would like to know, and I could not discover any defects in 23 andMe’s description of the science.

The Times editorial concludes with this:

.

” 23 andMe has actually stated that its health tests can raise awareness about different medical conditions and empower customers to organize their health info. However medical professionals and geneticists state that the tests are still more parlor technique than medication.”

.

That last declaration is the most outright misstatement by the Times editors. Who are these geneticists who call DNA screening a “parlor technique”? The hereditary trial run by 23 andMe, which utilize innovation that is run daily at countless laboratories worldwide, are absolutely nothing of the sort. They are an extremely precise assay that has actually been duplicated countless times and verified by numerous peer-reviewed research studies. Typically the NY Times is among the most comprehensive and precise sources in the media, however they truly faltered this time.

. POST CONTINUES AFTER AD

.

The reality is, genes is not fate. Twins, who share similar DNA, hardly ever pass away of the very same causes. Hence even if you understood your hereditary threats completely, for every single anomaly in your DNA, you may not discover anything to alter in your habits. At a lot of, you may find out that you must get mammograms or colonoscopies a little more frequently. It’s genuine to argue that you will not find out anything helpful from the 23 andMe tests, however you will find out something about genes.

As far as altering your habits to decrease health threats, you do not require an advanced hereditary test for that. Simply consume more leafy greens.

[Note: although I’m a customer of 23andMe, I have no financial relationship with the company and I’m neither an advisor to nor an investor in them.]