Posting here because it sort of falls in line with non vaxxing - all about taking charge of your own health.
I'm really angry about all of this. I sent my test in a few weeks ago and was lucky to get my results back prior to them banning the health part of the testing (my ND is looking for MTHFR indicators) and now the FDA has to step in where they don't belong (big shock there, right?).
"The American Medical Association has taken the position that genetic testing should be performed only under the supervision of a doctor. Doctors benefit immensely from this because they charge anywhere from $300 to $3,500 for these tests, which require no special expertise to administer and for which they need not gain FDA approval."
Really?? Because all you do is spit into a tube....is that so complicated that only a doctor can be sure it's done correctly?
God forbid people be proactive about their own health and make choices based on facts. I get that genetics are not set in stone. Being pre-disposed does not in any way mean that even in the crappiest of circumstances you will succumb to the things you are pre-disposed to. But you can exponentially decrease those chances if you have the correct information to do so. Knowing you could be at a higher risk for complications with certain classes of drugs - that's hugely important. (Apparently I might have issue with Coumadin were it ever needed - that seems pretty damn important to know!)
But I guess, much like vaccines, government agencies want the opposite of health. They just want dependence on a broken health system blinded by money,
I'll take the opposite position here.
I love the idea that medical and genetic information is available, really I do. But the reason that genetic testing is supposed to be performed under the supervision of a doctor is not that it's somehow dangerous to do, it's that it's not okay to take people's money and then leave them twisting in the wind with worrying results. A doctor would be ethically obligated to help you find treatment and to counsel you about problems. 23andme just sends you the information and... nothing.
Additionally, one of the key issues the FDA is raising is accuracy. The FDA wants 23andme to conduct tests to prove that their tests are accurate. That seems like a reasonable requirement.
I'll take that they should prove accuracy. But there is plenty on the site that states they are not there to diagnose anything nor provide anything but possibilities. I think people need to understand that under a doctor's supervision or not, there is nothing absolute when talking genetics. For example one little section shows me as having less than 1/10th% chance for a heart attack in the next 10 years. I could drop dead from a heart attack tomorrow, although I'm more likely to die in a car accident - that minimal chance isn't any more a guarantee than having a 89% of having one in the same 10 year span. It's just a possibility. I think for someone like me who has found zero help from conventional medicine, having this option is a great thing because with a little help rom my ND, we can discuss and come to an agreement what will work best for my specific issues (non of which even appear on these particular tests and have to be analyzed through the raw data). I could just have easily browsed the internet for symptoms and researched various topics and come to a decision to treat on my own - just as anyone can. Not saying it's right but it is a path many people will choose for various reasons. But having the ability to do this testing - and having it be affordable - and narrowing down some of the possibilities is immensely helpful to me. I am using an ND to guide me along the way, so technically I'm under a doctor's supervision. I wouldn't want to go to a conventional doc though, only to find out I might have a *chance* of a heart issue only to be thrown on a pharmaceutical med as a precaution...something all too common these days. So I think the FDA's position is a little harsh. They aren't known to be for the people, more for the money, and that certainly appears to be the case here. Keep the money with the people that lobby for it.