tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post103985337780538775..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Whole genome sequencing, yes or no?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-1207809442390425522012-06-05T15:42:31.134-04:002012-06-05T15:42:31.134-04:00I knew you'd like that one.I knew you'd like that one.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-23008571850778253232012-06-05T14:53:48.978-04:002012-06-05T14:53:48.978-04:00There is sooo much wrong with this article besides...There is sooo much wrong with this article besides your points (which are also correctly noted!) that it's hard to comment.<br /><br />The lifetime risk of diabetes in the US today is about 33%. Even for lower risk groups (people of the right color and who are handsomely svelt) it's something like 10%. Thus, a story of a 'success' after the fact is absolutely of zero relevance. What we need to know is the relative risk associated with this variant, the conditional reporting of the success (that is, negative predictions not being reported), and we need to take into account what 'diabetes' means in this case.<br /><br />Diabetes may be diagnosed based on some cutoff blood glucose level, which is a subjective CDC kind of judgment criterion. The measure may change over time. The definitions change over time. And if the guy's treatment worked, by the simple lifestyle changes we all know are relevant to diabetes! <br /><br />No genetic test was needed or called for, nor did it do any good in this case. With or without the Bad genotype, all he needed to have done was what he's now doing.<br /><br />But even more seriously than his obvious vested interest and the conditional reporting and definition issue, is that one true success doesn't justify in itself the cost or stress on the (highly profitable to his company) approach.<br /><br />The real legitimate question is how useful or cost-effective (to use the US's only accepted criterion these days) is it to do this rather than other things? Maybe if everybody biked it would be better for everyone: more jobs for bike makers and fixers, less health care costs, more funds for truly ill people with truly genetic diseases.<br /><br />But the alternative-approach balance question isn't asked, especially by those who are committed to a particular approach. This is true in general, I think, not just of genetics.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-67661983585190771362012-06-05T14:43:45.609-04:002012-06-05T14:43:45.609-04:00Non specialists don't know the difference betw...Non specialists don't know the difference between sequencing and genotyping. This guy didn't need to have his genome sequenced, for example, but the article makes sequencing out to be the hero: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/business/geneticists-research-finds-his-own-diabetes.html" rel="nofollow">A Geneticist's Research Turns Personal</a>. Genotyping would have gotten that same information to him faster and cheaper. But notice how this is in the BUSINESS SECTION!Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.com