Posted on 02/23/2019 7:22:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. HEALTH/LIFE BUMP!
Who to insure and who to deny coverage too when they have your information in the computer. Bad genes no life insurance for your. Our underwriting standards that make it difficult to by any type of insurance coverage.
How’s Grace??
Call me shocked. I would think the insurance industry would use these data to determine who they will insure (clean gene people) and who they won’t (people with “bad” genes)...
Because the Y axis of the scale is not linear, the decline on both is much MORE dramatic than pictured.
Exactly...Was she cured? Or did they only discover her ailment?
Wealth creation? Better, less expensive medicine?
The wholly unconstitutional FDA better fix that fright away!!!!
OH GOODY!
Genetic engineering placed under governmental control of “health care”.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
And who will be in charge of “theraputic selection”?
“Call me shocked. I would think the insurance industry would use these data to determine who they will insure (clean gene people) and who they won’t (people with “bad” genes)...”
Indeed, there would also be no shock if it was determined that the insurance industry was a large consumer of “private” ancestry type DNA records (under the table of course).
This wording in the article is also suspect...
As of November 1, UnitedHealthcare began covering “whole exome sequencing for patients where clinical presentation is non-specific and does not fit a well-defined syndrome.”
Clinical presentation..... well-defined syndrome...
These would still be tested for using current, expensive, progressive testing regimen which would keep premiums high dollars flowing to the insurance companies.
Two things medicine will likely not stand for...
Complete diagnostic process (whole body, soup to nuts in a single pass) as opposed to the diagnostic track/ala cart expensive and clunky methods currently in practice.
and
a cure (read gone, never coming back, never an issue again) for anything.
.02
YMMV
KYPD
This is the building block for CRISPR. In China last year, twins were born with modified genes to prevent HIV.
The twins, called Lulu and Nana, reportedly had their genes modified before birth by a Chinese scientific team using the new editing tool CRISPR. The goal was to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Now, new research shows that the same alteration introduced into the girls’ DNA, deletion of a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.
These two girls are our first meta humans!!
Good point, but the vast population that will not require human genomic sequencing will be unaffected.
I clicked through the article in violation of FReep tradition. The Townhall article seemed noteworthy; however, the guy’s website is a hard-sell bio and high tech investment newsletter. For only $100, you too can be in the know to invest in extremely future tech:
https://secure.bonnerandpartners.com/chain?cid=MKT379251&eid=MKT385353&assetId=AST92716&page=2
Ten screens worth of hyping new tech from biotech to 5g.
NVTA and GBT are two stocks more that are dedicated to this kind of stuff, FWIW.
The value of whole genome sequencing is not as easy or clear-cut as this writer makes it out to be.
1) Everyone has at least one deleterious mutation. This is not an issue if the other parent of your children does not carry any of the same genetic mutations that you have.
2) We are products of genes and environment. You may have genes that predispose you to heart disease, for example, but if you follow a healthy diet and get adequate exercise, you might avoid the heart disease.
3) There are tens of thousands of genes that interact with each other, and we are still in the process of characterizing each gene function. We are a long way from understanding the complex interactions among all of the different genes. So don’t expect a whole genome sequence to tell you everything about your health. It won’t.
4) Having the whole genome sequenced also does not inform about the expression of genes, which are controlled by epigenetic factors, which are DNA modifications that do not change the DNA sequence.
5) Since cancer often arises from somatic (non-germ cell) mutations which often occur as we age, having a whole genome sequence will tell you nothing of your cancer risk. The exception is if you carry a gene variant known to increase cancer risk, such as the BRCA mutations associated with breast cancer. You can have those genes screened for specifically.
6) Disclaimer: I have been using the word “gene” above in a sense that encompasses more than its strict definition. I have used it to include the proteins and RNAs and their functions coded by functional genes, as well as control elements contained in the DNA which are not necessarily components of genes.
7) This is not a complete list of reasons genomic sequencing is not a magic tool to assess or predict health conditions. The bottom line is that it is another tool in the repertoire, not a universal do-it-all gadget.
Thanks, exDemMom.
This article’s half snake oil half tonic.
To see where this is going, watch the predictive programming (aka “movie”) called Gattaca.
You’re welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.