@Fire, does that really matter? Every time you have a blood test, the results are inputted on to a database somewhere, why should my DNA results be of any interest to anybody else and what would they want to do with it anyway? I have been very careful not to input my whole family tree onto Ancestry or any other site, only basic details of dead people so that other researchers can get in touch with me if needed. I am well aware, because I have been doing it for nearly 20 years, and take it very seriously, of how easy it is these days to find out almost anybody's family tree, particularly in the UK. I am a member of the Guild of One-Name Studies and study one particular surname. I have details of circa 8000 people on my databases.
And then you get the book of [your name] sold to you via a speculative email. Only to find out it has only one member from your extended family with the same surname and its useless. One name books, one copy was bought by an elderly relative and its only good for a doorstop!
The report and information provided was exactly the same as my mum got from ancestry. I did hear they use the same few labs for testing anyway. The ancestry website gave my mum no better information in fact they offered no health insights which 23andme offer.
Aiui a lot of these dna testing companies are of interest to big tech. Do not be surprised if you find out Google or Intel have a lot of shares in ancestry. They're the companies with the money to carry out the research on this topic to make it of any use.
I know people who were carrying out research into medical condition detection and prediction through dna testing about 10 years ago paid for by big tech. The very research that probably led to these dna services we get today.
And frankly @SlipperyElm most of this stuff is just navel gazing nonsense as if it matters greatly to find ancestors from six generations back. People farm their old folks who are their living history to old people homes and visit them three times a year and then pay multinational companies to tell them about their ancestor in 1890 who was a hat seller 🤣
does that really matter? Every time you have a blood test, the results
are inputted on to a database somewhere, why should my DNA results be of
any interest to anybody else and what would they want to do with it
anyway?
I, personally, tend to put international DNA databases in the same cupboard as international facial recognition software databases. Insurance companies are very interested in both.
'Sorry we can't insure you for leukemia treatment because you have a predispositon.'
'I'm sorry, you can't get the director's post because the database shows you have a clear predispositon to obesity, heart disease and addiction. We will look for more suitable candidates"
"What exactly were you doing in downtown Sydney on the night of the 24th? Why did you go to three bars on Clarence Street? You appear in South Melbourne a week later and then back in East London. Could you explain?'
- - -
Gene research holds the key to amazing transformations in medical approaches, but we just need to be careful who owns the rights in perpetuity. Google and Amazon have both been sold NHS data and the lines between corporate and govt health provision will only get more blurred. You could argue that this will be problem for Americans first or will only affect our grandchildren or that the benefits of huge corporate-owned health data outweight the risks. But all this is the way we are all going and there should be a lot more transparency and openess about these questions than we currently have, not least from the NHS and DNA testing companies.
A customer of my old company, actually a director, once had to fly to Australia for a suite visit but had to be back in Britain for something else asap. So he landed in Australia and left the same day.
About 6 months later he had to go back for another site visit. The border guards basically left him in a state where he couldn't comfortably sit down for a few days and he has never gone back since.
Point being they're watching you anyway and you think of they would benefit from dna they'd not get it another means? You're being watched all the time in built up areas. If there's a totalitarian approach going on they've got enough tools already such that dna isn't going to give them much more.
Health predisposition? NHS allows sharing of health records. With data mining techniques you really think they can't use those records instead? Paranoia is common but it's too late for that now!
And frankly @SlipperyElm most of this stuff is just navel gazing nonsense as if it matters greatly to find ancestors from six generations back. People farm their old folks who are their living history to old people homes and visit them three times a year and then pay multinational companies to tell them about their ancestor in 1890 who was a hat seller 🤣
Speak for yourself! A cousin of mine who did all the genealogy research for our part of the family looked after our grandmother, on her own, for over a year after she had a serious stroke.
It may not 'matter greatly' to you but it can give an interesting insight into where a family has come from, literally and figuratively.
I've been playing with my family's tree and for a start just used freebmd. It was good enough to get me started. The DNA stuff I think is interesting to see where in general people come from, but aren't a proportion of father's registered on birth certs not the biological father anyway? My grandad was illegitimate - but that was known - so a choice as to how I then followed the tree before him. But he could have been illegitimate and we didn't know, and then you trace completely the wrong tree.
Concentrate on those companies offering proper sibling testing. The tests claiming to identify when your tribe left Africa are highly speculative to be very charitable about it. A quick internet search gave me Cellmark and there are many others. From Cellmark:-
Sibling Testing
DNA relationship testing, where alleged siblings are tested, is not
as conclusive as parentage testing. This is due to the nature of the
inheritance of DNA markers. On average full siblings will share more DNA
markers than half siblings, who in turn will share more DNA markers
than unrelated individuals. However, due to the nature of inheritance,
this analysis can only give an indication of the relationship - it is
not conclusive.
Individuals are full siblings when they have the same genetic
(biological) mother and father. Half siblings share only one biological
parent, either the mother or the father
Inconclusive between Full and Half Siblings is reported when the
comparison of the DNA profiles provides a strong indication of a sibling
relationship but, due to the patterns of DNA inheritance it is not
possible to determine the true nature of the relationship tested.
If the DNA report indicates that it is most likely the individuals
are unrelated this does not exclude the possibility that a half sibling
relationship exists but the individuals have not inherited enough of the
same DNA markers in order to be able to detect this relationship.
Posts
I have been very careful not to input my whole family tree onto Ancestry or any other site, only basic details of dead people so that other researchers can get in touch with me if needed. I am well aware, because I have been doing it for nearly 20 years, and take it very seriously, of how easy it is these days to find out almost anybody's family tree, particularly in the UK. I am a member of the Guild of One-Name Studies and study one particular surname. I have details of circa 8000 people on my databases.
Aiui a lot of these dna testing companies are of interest to big tech. Do not be surprised if you find out Google or Intel have a lot of shares in ancestry. They're the companies with the money to carry out the research on this topic to make it of any use.
I know people who were carrying out research into medical condition detection and prediction through dna testing about 10 years ago paid for by big tech. The very research that probably led to these dna services we get today.
I, personally, tend to put international DNA databases in the same cupboard as international facial recognition software databases. Insurance companies are very interested in both.
'Sorry we can't insure you for leukemia treatment because you have a predispositon.'
' Your DNA shows an increased tendendcy towards violent crime, so we are going to tag you now, just in case'.
'I'm sorry, you can't get the director's post because the database shows you have a clear predispositon to obesity, heart disease and addiction. We will look for more suitable candidates"
"What exactly were you doing in downtown Sydney on the night of the 24th? Why did you go to three bars on Clarence Street? You appear in South Melbourne a week later and then back in East London. Could you explain?'
- - -
Gene research holds the key to amazing transformations in medical approaches, but we just need to be careful who owns the rights in perpetuity. Google and Amazon have both been sold NHS data and the lines between corporate and govt health provision will only get more blurred. You could argue that this will be problem for Americans first or will only affect our grandchildren or that the benefits of huge corporate-owned health data outweight the risks. But all this is the way we are all going and there should be a lot more transparency and openess about these questions than we currently have, not least from the NHS and DNA testing companies.
About 6 months later he had to go back for another site visit. The border guards basically left him in a state where he couldn't comfortably sit down for a few days and he has never gone back since.
Point being they're watching you anyway and you think of they would benefit from dna they'd not get it another means? You're being watched all the time in built up areas. If there's a totalitarian approach going on they've got enough tools already such that dna isn't going to give them much more.
Health predisposition? NHS allows sharing of health records. With data mining techniques you really think they can't use those records instead? Paranoia is common but it's too late for that now!
Sibling Testing
DNA relationship testing, where alleged siblings are tested, is not as conclusive as parentage testing. This is due to the nature of the inheritance of DNA markers. On average full siblings will share more DNA markers than half siblings, who in turn will share more DNA markers than unrelated individuals. However, due to the nature of inheritance, this analysis can only give an indication of the relationship - it is not conclusive.